lilO 


■'»TH€:^  r)"AV 


UC-NRLF 


$B    Sfifl    MhD 


ROPE 


III.  A; 


s  AND  Great  B.RiTAiN 
David  A^Vells 

iw'AR.DJ,Pin::i:p-S^ 
TlONAi.  DlSP(JTl:S 

v  Carl  Schdrz 


QUESTIONS    OF    THE   DAY. 


(The  numbers  omitted  represent  Monographs  no  longer  in  print.) 

3 — Our  Merchant  Marine.     By  David  A.  Wells.     Octavo,  cloth  i  oo 

5  &  6— The  American  Citizen's  Manual.  Edited  by  Worthington 
C.  Ford.  Pari  I. — Governments  (National,  State,  and'.Local),  the 
Electorate,  and  the  Civil  Service.  Part  II. — The  Functions  of  Gov- 
ernment.    Two  vols,  in  one.     Cloth i  25 

9 — The  Destructive  Influence  of  the  Tariff  upon  Manufacture  and 
Commerce,  and  the    Figures  and   Facts  Relating  Thereto. 

By  J.  ScHOENHOF.     Octavo,  cloth,  75  cents  ;  paper        .         .         40 

lO— Of  Work   and   Wealth.     By  R.  R.  Bowker.     Octavo,  cloth,     75 

13— Public  Relief  and  Private  Charity.     By  Josephine  Shaw  Lowell. 
Octavo,  cloth,  75  cents  ;  paper        ......         40 

14 — "  The  Jukes."     A  Study  in  Crime,  Pauperism,  Disease,  and  Heredity. 
By  R.  L.  Dugdale.     Octavo,  cloth        .         .         .         .       ' .     i  00 

16— The  True  Issue.     By  E.  J.  Donnell.  -Octavo,  j^per  .11     .         25 

20— The    Progress   of  the    Working   Classes   in    the    Last    Half 
Century.     By  Robt.  Giffen.     Octavo,  paper      ...         25 

23 — Social  Economy.     By  J.  E.  Thorold  Rogers.     Octavo  .         .         75 

24— The  History  of  the  Surplus  Revenue  of  1837.     ^y  Edward  G. 
Bourne.     Octavo,  cloth 125 

25 — The    American    Caucus    System.      By    George    W.    Lawton. 
Octavo,  cloth,  i.oo  ;  paper .50 

26 — The  Science  of  Business.    By  R.  H.  Smith.    Octavo,  cloth  .     i  25 

28— The   Postulates  of  English   Political  Economy.     By  Walter 
Bagehot.     Octavo,  cloth i  00 

30 — The  Industrial  Situation.     By  J.  Schoenhof.     Octavo,  cloth,  i  00 

35 — Unwise  Laws.     By  Lewis  H.  Blair.     Octavo,  cloth    .        .     i  00 

36  —Railway  Practice.     By  E.  Porter  Alexander.     Octavo,  cloth,  75 

37 — American  State  Constitutions:  A  Study  of  their  Growth.  By 
Henry  Hitchcock,  LL.D.     Octavo,  cloth  ....        75 

38 — The  Inter-State  Commerce  Act :  An  Analysis  of  its  Provisions. 
By  John  R.  Dos  Passos.     Octavo,  cloth       .        .        .        .     i  25 

39 — Federal  Taxation  and  State  Expenses ;  or.  An  Analysis  of  a 
County  Tax-List.     By  W.  H.  Jones.     Octavo,  cloth    .         .     I  00 


I 


QUESTIONS     jF   the   DAY. 


40 — The  Margin  of  Profits.  By  Edward  Atkinson.  Together  with 
the  Reply  of  E.  M.  Chamberlain,  Representing  the  Labor  Union, 
and  Mr.  Atkinson's  Rejoinder;     Cloth,  75  cents  ;  pape^     .         .     40 

42 — Bodyke :  A  Chapter  in  the  History  of  Irish  Landlordism.  By 
Henry  Norman.     Octavo,  cloth,  illustrated  •         •         .         75 

43 — Slav  or  Saxon  :  A  Study  of  the  Growth  and  Tendencies  of  Russian 
Civilization.     By  Wm.  D    Foulke,  A.M.     Octavo,  cloth        .     i  00 

44 — The  Present  Condition  of  Economic  Science,  and  the  Demand 
for  a  Radical  Change  in  its  Methods  and  Aims.  By  EdwXrd 
C.  LuNT.     Octavo,  cloth 75 

46 — Property  in  Land.     By  Henry  Winn.     Octavo,  paper         .         25 

47— The  Tariff  History  of  the  United  States.  By  F.  W.  Taussig. 
Octavo,  cloth .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .     I  25 

48 — The  President's  Message,  1887.  With  annotations  by  R.  R. 
Bowker.     Octavo,  paper 25 

49 — Essays    on    Practical    Politics.      By     Theodore     Roosevelt. 

Octavo,  cloth  .........         75 

50 — Friendly  Letters  to  American  Farmers  and  Others.     By  J.  S. 

Moore.     Octavo,  paper 25 

52 — Tariff  Chats.  By  Henry  J.  Philpott.  Octavo,  paper  .  25 
53 — The  Tariff  and  its  Evils  ;  or.  Protection  which  does  not  Protect. 

By  John  H.  Allen.     Octavo,  cloth i  GO 

54 — Relation  of  the  Tariff  to  Wages.     By  David  A.  Wells.     Octavo, 

paper      ...........         20 

55 — True   or   False    Finance.     The  Issue  of  1888.     By   a   Tax-Payer. 

Octavo,  paper .         ,         25 

56 — Outlines  of  a  New  Science.     By  E.  J.  Donnell.     Octavo,  cloth, 

I    CO 

57 — The  Plantation  Negro  as  a  Freeman.     By  Philip  A.   Bruce. 

Octavo,   cloth  .         .         .         .         %         .         .         .         .     I  25 

58 — Politics  as  a  Duty  and  as  a  Career.     By  Moorfield  Story. 

Octavo,  paper         .........         25 

59 — Monopolies  and  the  People.     By  Chas.  W.  Baker.    Octavo,  cloth. 

I  25 
60 — The    Public    Regulation    of   Railways.     By   W.    D.    Dabney, 

Octavo I  25 

61 — Railway  Secrecy  and  Trusts;  Its  Relation  to  Inter-State  Legisla- 
tion.    By  John  M.  Bonham.     Octavo i  00 

62 — American  Farms  :  Their  Condition  and  Future.  By  J.  R.  Elliott. 
Octavo .         .         .         .     I  25 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/americaeuropestuOOwellrich 


America  and  Europe 

A 

STUDY  OF  INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT  .BRITAIN 

BY  DAVID  A.  WELLS 

II.  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

BY  EDWARD  J.  PHELPS 

III.  ARBITRATION  IN    INTERNATIONAL 
DISPUTES 

BY  CARL  SCHURZ 


\vOvi 

r^:i/^, 

G. 

P. 

PUTNAM'S 

SONS 

NEW 

YORK 

LONDON 

27 

WEST  TWENTY-THIRD  STREET 

24  BEDFORD  STREET, 

STRAND 

®fe' 

t  '^nukeibotker  '§ 
1896 

ress 

(?7  Ac 


Copyright,  i8g6 

BY 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S   SONS 
Entered  at  Stationers^  HalL  London 


Ubc  Vtnfclierbocliet  press,  l^evo  ][;orI; 


CONTENTS. 


I. — The     United     States      and      Great 
Britain. — Their   True   Governmen- 
tal AND  Commercial  Relations      .         3-72 
By  David  A.  Wells 

II. — The  Monroe  Doctrine  ....     73-100 
By  Edward  J.  Phelps 

III. — Arbitration   in    International    Dis- 
putes   .         .         .         •  )      •         •         •   103-128 
By  Carl  Schurz 


916634 


4 


THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT 
BRITAIN. 

THEIR    TRUE    GOVERNMENTAL    AND 
COMMERCIAL     RELATIONS 

By  David  A.  Wells. 


THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT 
BRITAIN.^ 

THEIR  TRUE  GOVERNMENTAL  AND  COM- 
MERCIAL RELATIONS. 

By  David  A.  Wells. 

NOTWITHSTANDING  the  long-continucd  and 
extensive  commercial  relations  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  England  (using 
this  term  as  a  synonym  for  the  United 
Kingdom),  far  more  extensive  on  the  part 
of  the  former  than  with  any  other  nation  or 
people ;  notwithstanding  that  the  people  of 
the  United  States  and  of  England  are  essen- 
tially of  the  same  blood,  language,  religion, 
and  political  principles,  and  that  a  fair 
acquaintance  with  English  history  and  litera- 
ture is  regarded  in  the  United  States  as  an 
essential  to  a  liberal  education,  there  are  some 

*  Reprinted,  by  permission,  from  the  North  American  Review  of 
April,  1896  with  much  additional  matter. 

3 


9    «?c^*  «'o 


4        77/^  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

most  important  characteristics  of  England's 
commercial  policy  and  sovereignty  which  are 
not  generally  recognized  in  the  United  States 
by  men  claiming  to  be  educated,  and  which 
by  the  masses  are  so  completely  ignored  as  to 
constitute  the  occasion  for  misunderstandings 
and  continual  harsh  denunciations.  If  these 
statements  are  warranted,  it  would  seem  almost 
necessarily  to  follow  that,  if  the  true  relative 
conditions  of  the  two  countries  were  better 
understood,  it  would  be  conducive  to  peace 
and  good  feeling,  and  in  a  high  degree  in- 
fluential in  respect  to  a  settlement,  not  only 
of  the  present  Venezuelan  difficulty,  but  for  all 
possible  international  estrangements  in  the 
future  between  the  two  countries. 

That  there  is  much  of  popular  prejudice 
among  the  masses  in  the  United  States  against 
England  cannot  be  doubted  ;  and  the  question 
is  most  pertinent.  To  what  is  such  a  state  of 
feeling  attributable  ? 

A  general  answer  is,  to  a  variety  of  causes. 

First,  to  the  memory  of  two  wars  with  the 
mother  country.  But  in  each  of  these 
contests,  the  people  of  the  Anglo-American 
colonies  in  the  first  instance,  and  the  people 
of  the  United  States  in  the  second,  obtained 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.       5 

all  for  which  they  contended  ^  and  the  parties 
and  the  measures  responsible  for  what 
happened  have  long  passed  into  history.  And 
here  it  may  not  be  uninteresting  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact,  that  the  grievance  of  the 
colonies  which  is  generally  regarded  as  the 
prime  cause  of  the  American  Revolution, 
namely,  that  the  colonists  were  taxed  by  the 
mother  country  without  representation  in 
Parliament,  and  had  therefore  no  opportunity 
of  presenting  their  case,  was  not  in  the  nature 
of  a  special  discrimination  by  the  British 
Government  against  their  transatlantic  sub- 
jects ;  inasmuch  as  historical  investigations 
have  since  shown,  that  at  the  same  time  not 
more  than  one-tenth  of  the  people  of  England 
had  any  vote  for,  or  personal  representation 
in,  the  British  Parliament. 

'  It  may  be  said  that  the  "  right  of  search,"  the  main  cause  of  the 
war  of  1 812,  was  never  renounced  by  England  in  the  subsequent 
treaty  of  peace  (/.  e.  of  Ghent)  or  in  any  other  treaty  with  the 
United  States.  This  may  be  technically  correct,  but  at  the  same 
time  England  has  never  since  attempted  to  exercise  this  right,  cer- 
tainly so  far  as  American  vessels  are  concerned.  It  was  left  for  the 
United  States  to  reopen  this  question  on  the  affirmative  side,  when 
Capt.  Wilkes,  U.  S.  N,,  in  contravention  of  a  now  universally 
recognized  maritime  law,  that  the  flag  borne  by  any  vessel  makes 
it  a  part  of  the  country  that  it  represents,  forcibly  took  from  the 
Trent,  a  regular  British  steamer,  the  persons  of  Messrs.  Slidell 
and  Mason. 


6        The  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

A  second  cause  which  has  been  most  influ- 
ential for  prejudice  against  England,  was 
the  policy  of  the  administration  of  the  British 
Government  under  Lord  Palmerston  toward 
the  United  States  during  the  period  of  the 
civil  war.  But  there  is  now  no  question  that 
the  masses  of  the  people  of  England  were  not 
in  sympathy  with  their  Government  in  this 
respect,  and  that  the  British  working  people 
especially,  although  brought  in  large  numbers 
to  the  verge  of  starvation,  by  reason  of  the 
inability  of  their  employers  to  obtain  their 
accustomed  supply  of  cotton  from  the  United 
States,  followed  without  murmuring  the  advice 
of  those  earnest  and  constant  friends  of  the 
Federal  Union — Messrs.  Cobden  and  Bright — 
rather  than  that  of  Palmerston  and  his 
Ministry.  And  in  illustration  of  what  were 
the  real  sentiments  of  the  masses  of  the 
United  Kingdom  during  the  period  when  the 
outlook  for  the  loyal  States  was  most  inauspi- 
cious, it  is  well  to  recall  that  when  Mr.  Roebuck, 
as  the  representative  of  Lord  Palmerston, 
advocated  and  moved  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons the  recognition  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  and  backed  his  recommendation 
with   an  acknowledged    burst    of    oratory,    in 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,        y 

which  he  said  that  his  only  fear  of  the  pending 
issue  of  the  war  was  that  the  South  should 
establish  its  independence  without  England's 
assistance,  the  House,  under  the  lead  and 
influence  of  John  Bright,  voted  down  Mr. 
Roebuck  and  his  arguments  by  such  a  majority 
as  rendered  the  adoption  of  his  motion  an 
impossibility. 

It  is  now  well  known  that  it  was  mainly 
through  the  influence  or  intervention  of 
England's  Queen  that  war  did  not  follow 
when  Admiral  Wilkes,  in  contravention  of  all 
international  law,  seized  the  Trent,  a  British 
steamer,  with  Messrs. Slidell  and  Mason,  and  in 
the  event  of  which  the  perpetuation  of  the 
Federal  Union  would  have  been  all  but  im- 
possible ;  a  result  which  the  government  of 
every  continental  state  of  Europe,  with  the 
possible  exception  of  Russia,  would  have 
been  glad  to  have  occur ;  while  the  action 
of  the  Government  of  France,  under  Louis 
Napoleon,  stopped  little  short  of  actual 
hostilities  against  the  Union,  and  probably 
would  have  been  more  offensive  but  for  the 
restraining  influence  of  England. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  too  much  to  say  that 
when    the    fate    of    the    Federal    Union    was 


8        The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

hanging,  as  it  were,  in  the  balance,  and  it  was 
absolutely  in  the  power  of  England  to 
determine  which  side  should  predominate,  her 
action  was  in  favor  of  the  perpetuation  of  the 
Union,  and  that  for  this  the  people  of  the 
United  States  owe  her  a  debt  of  gratitude 
which  has  not  as  yet  been  by  them  fully  recog- 
nized and  appreciated.  ^ 

It  should  also  not  be  forgotten  that  after  the 
war  Great  Britain  submitted  our  claim  of 
damages  as  a  nation  against  her  to  arbitration, 
and  promptly  paid  fifteen  millions  of  dollars 
in  cash  into  the  United  States  Treasury,  a  sum 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  arbitrators,  covered 
all  the  legitimate  claims  of  the  United  States 
against  her.^ 

*  It  is  historically  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  that  the 
ideas  of  Lord  Palmerston  respecting  the  United  States  in  1861-62, 
which  have  long  since  ceased  to  be  in  any  degree  potential  with  the 
English  people,  continue  to  form  an  ideal  with  the  people  of  other 
countries,  as  to  England's  policy  of  unjustifiable  aggression. 

^  Criticism  has  been  made  on  this  award  on  the  ground  that  it 
covered  "  only  such  direct  damages  as  could  be  brought  home  to 
particular  privateers,"  and  did  not  consider  the  question  of  indirect 
damages  resulting  from  annihilation  of  the  enormous  ante-bellum  share 
of  the  ocean-carrying  trade  of  the  United  States  by  reason  of  the  war 
and  Confederate  cruisers.  But  those  who  make  it  overlook  the  fact, 
that  the  remarkable  decline  in  the  American  ocean  mercantile  ma- 
rine commenced  at  a  considerable  period  before  the  war.  Thus  the 
total  tonnage  of  every  description  built  in  the  United  States  declined 
from  583,000  tons  in  1855  to  378,807  tons  in  1857  and  212,892  tons 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,       9 

With  this  brief  consideration  of  the  causes 
of  prejudice  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  the 
United  Statesagainst  England,  which, although 
powerfully  operative  in  the  past,  ought  not  to 
be  so  now,  inasmuch  as  all  the  international 
differences  involved  have  been  amicably  settled, 
undeniably  to  the  advantage  of  the  former, 
and  are  now  only  important  as  matters  of  his- 
tory, we  come  to  the  consideration  of  a  third 
cause,  which  at  present  is  far  more  potential 
than  the  aggregate  influence  of  all  other  causes, 
and  which  is  accepted  and  endorsed  as  in  the 
nature  of  a  rightful  international  grievance  by 
nearly  every  member  of  our  national  or  state 
legislatures,  and  by  nearly  every  newspaper  or 
magazine  in  the  country.     And  that  is  the  as- 


in  i860,  a  reduction  in  five  years  of  68  per  cent  ;  and  that  in  i86i, 
before  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  there  were  no  ocean  steamers  away 
from  our  own  coast,  anywhere  on  the  globe,  except  perhaps  those  on 
the  route  between  New  York  and  Havre,  which  were  soon  withdrawn. 
The  war  helped  a  decadence  which  had  already  commenced  by 
reason  of  causes  that  had  not  even  a  remote  connection  with  the 
war  ;  and  this  decline  has  continued,  during  the  quarter  of  a  century 
and  more  that  has  elapsed  since  the  termination  of  our  war,  in  a  greater 
degree  than  that  experienced  during  the  same  period  by  any  other 
maritime  nation.  Thus  the  percentage  of  the  foreign  trade  of  the 
United  States  carried  in  American  vessels,  which  was  35.6  per  cent 
in  1870,  was  only  11. 7  per  cent  in  1895.  See  "  United  States  and 
Great  Britain."  By  Mayo  W.  Hazeltine,  North  American  Review, 
May,  1896. 


I  o      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

sumption  that  the  governmental  and  commer- 
cial policy  of  England  is  characterized  by  no 
other  principle  save  to  monopolize,  through 
arbitrary,  selfish,  and  unjust  measures,  every- 
thing on  the  earth's  surface  that  can  glorify 
herself  and  promote  the  interests  of  her  own 
insular  population,  to  the  detriment  of  all 
other  nations  and  peoples  ;  and  that  it  is  the 
bounden  duty  of  the  people  and  government 
of  the  United  States,  in  behalf  of  popular 
liberty,  civilization,  and  of  Christianity,  to  put 
an  end  to  the  further  continuance  of  such  a 
policy,  even  if  a  resort  to  war  would  be 
necessary  to  effect  it. 

Thus,  in  a  recent  speech  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  Senator  Cullom,  of  Illinois, 
characterized  England  as  having  planted  its 
flag  '*  on  all  the  scattering  islands  and  on  nearly 
every  spot  on  earth  where  it  could  monopolize 
or  control  the  strategic  advantages  of  location 
for  its  own  interests'';  and  that  we  cannot 
'''look  with  indifference''  upon  her  policy  to 
reach  out  farther  until,  if  left  alone,  she  will 
finally  dominate  Venezuela.  And  another 
member  of  Congress,  not  to  be  outdone  in 
this  line,  publicly  expressed  the  opinion  that  it 
was  for  the  interest  of  the  United  States   to 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,      1 1 

put  an  end  to  what  he  termed  the  "  grab-all 
policy  of  England." 

The  following  additional  citations  of  opin- 
ions recently  expressed  by  influential  men  in 
the  United  States  are  also  pertinent  to  this 
subject. 

In  an  address  at  a  Loyal  Legion  banquet 
at  Detroit  in  May,  1896,  Hon.  D.  M.  Dickin- 
son, ex-Postmaster-General,  spoke  as  follows  : 

''In  the  present  condition,  we  may  indulge 
in  a  reciprocity  of  polite  phrasing  and  post- 
prandial exuberance,  if  our  alert  watchman 
will  meantime  keep  an  eye  on  our  good  friends 
across  the  Atlantic,  especially  when,  having 
appropriated  Africa,  the  islands  and  even  the 
rocks  of  the  sea,  and  wherever  else  force  or 
intrigue  may  gain  a  footing,  they  begin  to  take 
an  interest,  not  altogether  born  of  curiosity  or 
of  a  purely  christianizing  spirit,  in  this  hemi- 
sphere. One  cannot  be  so  innocent  as  to  be- 
lieve that  the  sentiment  of  relationship  or 
friendship  of  England  to  the  United  States 
would  stand  in  the  way  of  the  settled  policy  of 
Great  Britain  to  make  Englishmen  richer  and 
her  power  greater,  even  at  our  cost.  Her  un- 
varying policy  is,  first  and  last  and  always,  to 
advance    British    interests   and  retain   British 


1 2      The  United  States  a?id  Great  Britain, 

supremacy — to  retain  and  add  to  British 
wealth.  Her  purposes  are  material.  Who- 
ever gets  in  the  way  of  that  is  the  enemy  of 
England,  and  will  be  so  treated — whether  it  be 
the  United  States  as  a  great  commercial  rival 
who  may  be  intrigued  against  and  encroached 
upon  and  even  crippled  in  some  time  of  her 
distress,  or  when  off  guard,  or  a  tribe  of  black 
men  in  Africa  in  the  way  of  her  colonization 
schemes,  who  may  be  safely  massacred  with 
machine  guns." 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  speech 
made  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  April 
6,  1895,  by  Henry  Cabot  Lodge  : 

"  The  gold  monometallic  policy  of  Great 
Britain,  now  in  force  among  all  great  civilized 
nations,  is,  I  believe,  the  great  enemy  of  good 
business  throughout  the  world  at  this  moment. 
Therefore,  it  seems  to  me,  if  there  is  any  way 
in  which  we  can  strike  England's  trade  or  her 
moneyed  interest,  it  is  our  clear  policy  to  do 
it  in  the  interest  of  silver." 

Extract  from  a  speech  of  Hon.  Joseph 
Hawley,  U.  S.  S.,  at  the  banquet  of  the  alumni 
of  Hamilton  College,  New  York,  February, 
1896, 

•*The  English  people  are  a  very  good  peo- 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,      1 3 

pie,  but  they  are  not  the  British  Government. 
That  is  another  thing  ;  and  in  every  emergency 
with  which  the  United  States  has  been  con- 
fronted the  British  Government  has  been  our 
enemy.  She  is  pushing  us  on  every  side  now. 
She  is  trying  to  straddle  the  Nicaraguan  canal 
and  to  grab  the  Alaskan  goldfields.  When- 
ever she  gets  hold  of  a  bit  of  land,  from  that 
time  her  boundary  line  is  afloat.  Look  at  the 
map  of  India,  and  stop  and  think.  That 
began  with  a  trading  company — English,  and 
British  arms  and  a  British  warship  to  help  it 
to  its  rights.  And  now  India  is  all  a  British 
possession.  That  is  the  kind  of  a  nation  that 
we  are  facing.  Look  at  their  fancy  drill  the 
other  day,  when  in  five  days  a  powerful  squad- 
ron was  gathered  at  the  stated  point.  Is 
there  no  object  lesson  for  America  in  that? 
I  tell  you  that  we  must  be  ready  to  fight. 
Either  we  will  float  a  dead  whale  on  the  ocean, 
or  we  must  say  to  Great  Britain,  '  Here  is 
where  you  stop  ! '  " 

"  He"  (the  British  lion)  "is  a  prowler  in 
search  of  prey  which  is  land — land  anywhere, 
everywhere — land  to  convert  the  present  boast 
of  possessing  one-third  of  the  earth's  surface 
into  one  of  holding  one-half,  and  then  two- 


1 4      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

thirds — land,  more  land,  to  extend  the  tribute 
to  be  paid  the  British  Crown  indefinitely." — 
Correspondent  Springfield  Republican, 

**  There  is  no  power  on  the  face  of  the  earth 
that  we  need  fear  trouble  with  except  Eng- 
land."— President  Capen,  Tuft's  College. 

"  The  growing  strength  of  the  British  navy 
is  a  menace  to  the  rest  of  the  world ;  it  is 
intended  to  be,  and  as  such  it  ought  to  be 
crushed." — Reported  interview  with  Rear- Ad- 
miral George  E.  Belknap,  U,  S,  N,  {Retired^. 

Such  then  are  typical  examples  of  the  counts 
in  the  international  indictment  which  popular 
sentiment  in  the  United  States  now  prefers 
against  England  :  and  which  leading  legislators 
and  influential  newspapers  assume  and  assert 
to  be  correct.  But  are  they  correct  ?  Are 
they  warranted  by  evidence  ?  The  only  pos- 
sible honest  answer  having  any  regard  for 
truth  is,  that  they  are  not  correct  ;  that  they 
do  not  contain  one  element  that  should  com- 
mend them  to  the  acceptance  and  belief  of 
honest  and  intelligent  men  ;  not  one  count 
which,  if  tried  before  an  honest  and  competent 
tribunal,  would  not  by  them  (to  employ  a  legal 
phrase)  be  promptly  "quashed." 

In  elucidation  of  this  subject,  and  for  deter- 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,      1 5 

mination  of  the  correctness  of  the  above  asser- 
tions, consideration  is  first  asked  of  what  might 
fairly  be  regarded  as  almost  a  test  case.  Thus 
the  leading  prejudicial  charge  preferred  against 
England  is,  that  her  governmental  and  com- 
mercial policy  and  action  are  always  dominated 
by  a  desire  to  create  for  herself  something  in 
the  nature  of  monopolies,  which  shall  inure 
to  her  exclusive  advantage  ;  and  from  parti- 
cipation in  which  foreign  nations  shall,  to  the 
greatest  extent  possible,  be  excluded.  Accept- 
ing now  the  universal  dictionary  definition  of 
"monopoly"  in  the  above  sense,  namely,  "to 
engross  or  obtain  by  any  means  the  exclusive 
right  of  trading  in  any  place,  and  the  sole 
power  of  vending  any  commodity  or  goods 
in  a  particular  place  or  country  "  (Webster)  ; 
"  a  right  of  exclusive  sale — an  exclusive  priv- 
ilege to  carry  on  a  traffic "  (Century),  the 
writer  would  respectfully  request  Messrs. 
Cullom,  Dickinson,  Hawley,  Lodge,  or  any 
other  person  who  agrees  with  them  in  senti- 
ment, to  specify  some  one  thing  in  respect  to 
which  England  enjoys  and  maintains  a  mo- 
nopoly (excepting,  of  course,  the  monopoly  of 
sovereignty,  in  default  of  which  there  can 
be  no  certain  government),  or  that  which   is 


1 6      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

created  and  exists  when  a  government  assumes 
exclusive  control  of  the  production  and  sale 
of  any  article  for  the  purpose  of  revenue, 
as  when  the  United  States  will  not  permit 
a  gallon  of  distilled  spirits  to  be  removed 
from  the  place  of  its  production,  or  from  a 
bonded  warehouse,  for  use  or  consumption, 
without  the  previous  payment  of  a  tax. 

A  popular  and  ready  answer  would  probably 
be  land.  But  there  is  not  a  square  foot  of 
the  earth's  surface  over  which  the  flag  of 
England  floats  which  the  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  in  common  with  the  people 
of  all  other  countries,  has  not  a  right  to 
enter  upon,  possess,  control,  and  enjoy  on 
terms  as  favorable  as  are  now  ever  granted 
to  any  Englishman.  The  only  possible  ex- 
ception to  this  statement  is  that  England, 
in  common  with  all  colonizing  nations  that 
establish  governments  over  lands  obtained 
from  barbarous  people,  often  finds  it  necessary 
to  exercise  some  restraint  over  the  first  occu- 
pants of  such  territory,  in  order  that  the 
desired  progress  in  respect  to  civilization  may 
not  be  retarded,  and  possibly  defeated. 

A  most  striking  and  instructive  exemplifi- 
cation of  the  liberal  and  enlightened  policy  of 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,     1 7 

England  in  this  respect  is  found  in  the  recent 
history  of  South  Africa.  In  1876-77,  when 
the  safety  of  Europeans  in  South  Africa  was 
menaced  by  a  general  revolt  of  the  dark- 
skinned  races,  England  assumed  the  control  of 
the  Government  of  the  ''Transvaal,"  or  South 
African  Republic,  a  name  since  given  to  a 
large  section  of  country  northeast  of  Cape 
Colony ;  no  other  Government  coveting  the 
task  or  expense  of  so  doing.  Subsequently, 
in  order  to  provide  for  the  common  safety  of 
the  various  people  who,  allured  by  the  diamond 
fields  and  other  inducements  were  flocking 
into  the  country,  some  rules  of  government 
became  necessary  ;  and,  accordingly,  at  a  con- 
vention of  South  African  representatives, 
assembled  in  188 1,  at  Pretoria,  the  capital  of 
the  country,  a  code  of  rules  or  laws,  drafted 
and  presented  by  the  British  Colonial  Office 
in  London,  was  adopted.  Of  this  code  the 
most  important  section  or  rule,  No.  XIV., 
reads  as  follows : 

"  All  persons  other  than  natives  [who  were 
then  typical  savages]  conforming  themselves 
to  the  laws  of  the  South  African  Republic  {a) 
will  have  full  liberty,  with  their  families,  to 
enter,  travel,  or  reside    in   any   part   of   the 


1 8      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

South  African  Republic  ;  {b)  they  will  be 
entitled  to  hire  or  possess  houses,  shops,  and 
premises  ;  {c)  they  may  carry  on  their  com- 
merce either  in  person  or  by  any  agents  they 
may  think  fit  to  employ  ;  (^)  they  will  not 
be  subject  in  respect  of  their  persons  or  prop- 
erty, or  in  respect  of  their  commerce  or  in- 
dustry, to  any  taxes,  whether  general  or  local, 
other  than  those  which  are  or  may  be  imposed 
upon  citizens  of  the  said  Republic." 

The  following  question  is  here  most  perti- 
nent to  those  who  consider  it  the  part  of 
true  American  statesmanship  and  intelligence, 
to  popularly  assert  the  *'  unvarying  policy  "  of 
England  to  be,  first,  last,  and  always,  to  retain 
British  supremacy,  for  the  purpose  of  retain- 
ing and  adding  *'  to  British  wealth  "  :  Can  they 
cite  one  other  single  instance  in  the  world's 
history,  where  a  great  and  strong  government, 
coming  into  undisputable  possession  and  con- 
trol of  a  great  area  of  the  earth's  surface, 
abounding  with  almost  illimitable  elements  of 
natural  wealth,  and  consequent  vast  oppor- 
tunities for  exclusive  trade,  commerce,  and  the 
collection  of  revenue,  has  freely  said  to  all  the 
people  of  all  the  other  nations  and  governments: 
Come  and  share  all  these  advantages  equally 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,      1 9 

with  us?  We  offer  them  to  you  subject  to  no  con- 
ditions or  restraint,  except  respect  and  obedi- 
ence to  such  laws,  in  consonance  with  the  above 
accepted  XIV.  rule,  as  the  people  themselves 
shall  establish.  And  had  the  principles  of 
this  rule  been  adhered  to  by  all  interested 
parties,  there  would  have  been  no  trouble  in 
the  Transvaal. 

But  it  may  be  asked.  How  about  trade  ? 
Does  not  England  extend  privileges  to  her 
own  subjects,  and  impose  discriminations 
against  the  people  of  the  other  nations  and 
countries  in  respect  to  trade  and  commerce  ? 
And  here  again  we  are  obligated  to  return 
a  similar  answer,  namely :  that  England 
grants  no  privileges  to  her  own  people  in 
respect  to  trade  and  commerce,  which  are  not 
equally  accorded  to  the  people  of  all  other 
countries ;  and  that  there  is  no  country 
over  which  the  sovereignty  of  England  ex- 
tends, where  the  people  of  all  other  countries 
— white,  black,  yellow,  and  red — do  not  have 
the  right  or  privilege  of  trade,  in  its  broadest 
sense  of  exporting  and  importing,  buying, 
selling,  or  transporting,  on  the  same  terms  as 
are  enjoyed  by  her  immediate  and  typical 
subjects.       In    dealing   with    other   countries, 


20      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

England  has  never  been  guilty  of  the  brutal 
incivility  of  telling  any  one  of  them  desiring 
reciprocal  trade  with  her  and  too  feeble  to 
take  offence  at  insult,  what  the  United  States 
told  Mexico,  in  1866,  through  its  House  of 
Representatives,  "  that  to  speak  of  permanent 
desirable  commercial  relations"  with  her  "is 
without  hope  of  success,  or  promise  of  sub- 
stantial results." 

A  very  common  feature  of  any  discussion 
in  the  United  States  of  the  trade  or  commer- 
cial policy  of  England  in  respect  to  other  na- 
tions, is  the  preference  of  a  charge  against  her, 
of  having,  more  than  a  half  a  century  ago,  in- 
stituted a  war  *'  in  order  to  force  poor  China 
to  take  the  opium  that  England  was  trying 
to  compel  her  to  import,  no  matter  what  the 
great  evils  resulting."  For  this  charge,  which 
has  been  popularly  regarded  as  irrefutable, 
there  is  no  good  or  sufficient  warrant ;  further 
than  that,  complete  evidence  to  the  contrary 
has  only  within  a  recent  period  become  popu- 
larly accessible  through  the  publication  of 
English  state  papers  ;  although  the  would-be 
American  authorities  on  this  subject  might,  in 
at  least  a  degree,  have  become  cognizant  of  the 
exact  truth  (as  will  be  presently  shown),  had 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     2 1 

they  taken  the  trouble  to  acquaint  themselves 
with  the  published  results  of  an  investigation 
of  this  subject  by  one  of  their  own  and  great- 
est statesmen,  whose  opinions  have  always 
commanded  almost  universal  respect.  A  sum- 
mary of  the  indisputable  facts  in  the  case  are 
as  follows  : 

Previous  to  the  inception  of  the  so-called 
"opium  war"  between  England  and  China 
{i.  e.  in  1840),  opium  was  cultivated  in  no  less 
than  ten  of  the  provinces  of  China,  and  its 
importation  was  permitted  and  regularly 
taxed,  the  same  as  any  other  imports.  Opium, 
the  product  of  India,  was  imported  into  China 
by  the  East  India  Company  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, and  without  inhibition  ;  but  to  an 
estimated  extent  of  not  more  than  two  per 
cent  of  what  would  then  have  been  necessary 
to  meet  the  demand  of  the  whole  Chinese 
population.  The  charge  that  England  first 
introduced  opium  into  China  has,  therefore, 
not  the  slightest  foundation  in  facts. 

Some  time  previous  to  1840  the  Chinese 
Government,  believing  the  use  of  this  drug  to 
be  detrimental  to  their  people,  prohibited,  not 
merely  its  importation  but  its  use  for  any  pur- 
pose, and   any  violation  of   these  enactments 


2  2      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

was  made  a  capital  offence.  As  the  appetite 
for  opium  on  the  part  of  the  Chinese  was  not 
thereby  extinguished,  and  the  supply  of  a  con- 
sequent continued  demand  for  it  becoming  ex- 
ceedingly profitable,  the  business  of  smuggling 
and  illicit  dealing  became  very  great,  and  is  now 
known  to  have  been  largely  participated  in  by 
the  very  Chinese  officials  whose  business  it 
was  to  enforce  the  law.  The  Chinese  Govern- 
ment, furthermore,  was  not  more  successful 
in  enforcing  their  law  against  opium  than  was 
the  enlightened  and  christianized  Government 
of  the  United  States  in  enforcing,  in  1867,  a 
tax  of  $2.00  per  gallon  on  distilled  spirits, 
when  out  of  an  annual  product  and  consump- 
tion of  at  least  50,000,000  gallons  it  w^s  only 
able  to  take  cognizance  for  revenue  purposes  of 
less  than  7,000,000  gallons.  What  was  then 
also  the  policy  of  the  British  Government 
towards  China  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact 
that  Lord  Palmerston,  then  Premier,  sent  a 
despatch  to  the  British  resident  agent  in  China, 
to  the  effect  that  if  any  British  subject  chose 
to  contravene  the  laws  of  China  in  respect  to 
trade  in  opium,  "  he  must  do  it  at  his  own 
risk."  On  the  other  hand,  the  Chinese  Gov- 
ernment, from  the  very  outset  of  the  opium 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.      23 

trouble,  refused  to  enter  into  any  negotiations 
with  the  representatives  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment, not  so  in  the  interests  of  the  opium 
trade  ;  not  in  the  interest  of  trade  at  all ;  but  in 
order  to  put  the  relations  of  the  two  govern- 
ments on  a  footing  that  would  be  tolerable, 
and  induce  the  Chinese  to  no  longer  assume 
that  all  foreigners  were  barbarians,  and  that 
barbarians  must  be  kept  under  control.  When 
Lord  Napier  was  sent  as  Minister  to  China  in 
1834,  its  Government  declined  to  have  any- 
thing to  do  with  him,  and  went  out  of  its  way 
to  belittle  him  by  using  offensive  characters 
for  his  name,  and  In  other  ways  insult  him. 
When  Lord  Napier,  fairly  driven  out  of  China 
by  insults,  was  replaced  by  Sir  Charles  Elliot, 
the  Chinese  authorities  in  Canton,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  deliberate  insult  to  foreigners  in  gen- 
eral, proposed  to  make  the  area  in  front  of  the 
so-called  *'  factories,"  where  British  merchants 
and  the  citizens  of  other  countries  were  vir- 
tually compelled  to  reside,  a  place  for  the  pub- 
lic execution  of  criminals. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  war  followed 
such  a  condition  of  things,  though  there  was 
no  formal  declaration  of  war  by  either  of  the 
participating   parties.      It  was    virtually  com- 


24      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

menced  by  the  Chinese,  who  sent  a  fleet  of 
fire-ships  to  burn  the  EngHsh  shipping  in  the 
harbor  of  Canton.  England  succeeded  in 
obtaining  from  the  Chinese  Government  a 
promise,  (that  was  not,  however,  kept,)  that 
the  persons  and  property  of  the  merchants 
of  all  nations  trading  with  China  should  be 
protected  in  the  future  from  insult  and  injury, 
and  that  their  trade  and  commerce  should  be 
maintained  upon  a  footing  common  to  all 
foreign  civilized  countries.  And  if  England 
had  not  undertaken  the  task  of  teaching  the 
Chinese  this  initiatory  lesson,  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  would  sooner  or  later 
have  been  obliged  so  to  do,  if  they  were  to 
maintain  peaceful  commercial  relations  and 
trade  with  China. 

The  so-called  "opium  war"  of  1840,  thus 
brought  about,  attracted  much  attention  in  the 
United  States,  as  the  interests  of  its  merchants 
prospectively  involved,  was  at  that  time  very 
considerable.  And  among  those  of  its  citizens 
who  especially  considered  the  subject  was  ex- 
President  John  Quincy  Adams,  who  gave  to 
the  American  public,  in  December,  1841,  the 
results  of  his  investigations  and  study,  in  the 
form  of    a  lecture  before   the   Massachusetts 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     25 

Historical  Society,  which  was  subsequently 
reprinted  in  the  Chinese  Repositoryy  an  Amer- 
ican missionary  paper  published  in  Canton. 
After  tracing  historically  what  had  occurred 
up  to  the  year  1841,  Mr.  Adams  said:  **  Do 
I  hear  you  inquire  what  is  all  this  to  the 
opium  question,  or  the  taking  of  Canton  ? 
These,  I  answer,  are  but  that  movement  of 
mind  on  this  globe  of  earth  of  which  the  war 
between  Great  Britain  and  China  is  now  the 
leading  star — The  justice  of  the  cause  between 
the  two  parties  —  which  has  the  righteous 
cause  ?  I  answer,  Britain  has  the  righteous 
cause.  The  opium  question  is  not  the  cause 
of  the  war  ;  but  the  arrogant  and  insupportable 
pretensions  of  China,  that  she  will  hold  com- 
mercial intercourse  with  the  rest  of  mankind, 
not  upon  terms  of  equal  reciprocity,  but  upon 
the  insulting  and  degrading  forms  of  the  rela- 
tion between  lord  and  vassal." 

The  assertion  that  "  the  gold  metallic  policy 
of  Great  Britain  is  the  great  enemy  of  good 
business  throughout  the  world,"  and  that  **  if 
there  is  any  way  in  which  we  {i,  e.,  the  people 
of  the  United  States)  can  strike  England's 
trade  or  her  moneyed  interest,  it  is  our  clear 
policy  to  do  it  in  the  interest  of  silver,"  would 


26      TJie  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

seem  to  be  the  utterance  of  an  insane  person  ; 
or,  if  not  insane,  of  one  who  does  not  know, 
and  despises  knowledge.  As  well  expect  Eng- 
land, for  the  furtherance  *'  of  good  business 
throughout  the  world,"  to  substitute  crooked 
sticks  for  metal  plows  ;  transportation  on  men's 
and  mules'  backs  in  place  of  wagons  ;  wagons 
in  place  of  railroad  cars ;  canoes  in  place  of 
ships,  and  sails  in  place  of  steam,  as  to  expect 
her  to  substitute  what  large  experience  has 
proved  to  be  the  best  money  instrumentality 
for  effecting  exchanges  on  the  part  of  the 
great  commercial  nations,  for  one  that  is  best 
fitted  for  people  and  countries  that  have  com- 
paratively small  exchanges  with  the  outside 
world,  and  are  low  down  in  civilization. 

A  brief  word  here  to  avoid  misapprehension, 
and  in  further  illustration  of  the  exception- 
ally liberal  policy  of  the  British  (Home)  Gov- 
ernment. The  sovereignty  of  England  is  said 
to  cover  about  one-third  of  the  earth's  surface. 
It  includes  forty  separate  so-called  colonies, 
which  embrace  about  one-fourth  of  the  popula- 
tion of  the  globe.  Whenever  the  population 
of  any  of  these  colonies  becomes  considerable, 
and  there  is  a  manifest  and  intelligent  desire 
on  the  part  of  its  inhabitants  to  be  emanci- 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     2  7 

pated  from  close  dependence  on  the  mother 
country,  England  grants  them  a  substantially 
free  and  independent  government.  The  num- 
ber of  such  colonies  having  an  exclusive  and 
responsible  representative  government  is  at 
present  nine,  and  a  clear  and  interesting  illus- 
tration of  their  working  is  afforded  in  the  case 
of  Canada,  which  has  a  population  of  about 
5,000,000.  England  appoints  a  Governor, 
whose  duties  are  mainly  ceremonial  and  nom- 
inal. The  people  of  Canada  elect  their  own 
legislators,  their  ministers,  or  state  administra- 
tors ;  and  the  concurrence  of  the  Crown  is  not 
required  in  the  appointment  of  any  public 
officer  below  the  Governor.  Under  a  govern- 
ment thus  organized,  Canada  makes  its  own 
laws  ;  imposes  and  collects  its  own  taxes,  and 
determines  their  expenditure  ;  maintains  its 
own  military  forces  ;  establishes  its  own  bank- 
ing and  currency  system,  and  its  own  educa- 
tional, sanitary,  and  police  provisions.  One 
of  the  few  restraining  conditions  on  the  com- 
plete independence  of  Canada  and  the  other 
self-governing  colonies  of  the  British  Empire 
is,  that  they  are  not  allowed  to  treat  at  first 
hand  with  foreign  Governments,  for  the  evi- 
dent reason  that  the  smallest  as  well  as  the 


28      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

largest  of  the  British  possessions  may  other- 
wise involve  the  Empire  in  more  or  less  diffi- 
cult and  critical  negotiations  with  foreign 
powers.  The  self-governing  colonies  are  not, 
however,  compelled  to  accept  the  settlement 
of  any  difficulty  they  may  have  with  a  foreign 
government,  which  may  be  recommended  to 
them  by  their  Home  Government ;  and  this  has 
been  referred  to  as  the  link  at  which  the  moor- 
ing chains  of  the  larger  British  colonies  to  the 
mother  country  are  most  likely  (if  ever)  to 
snap. 

As  a  rule,  the  Home  Government  is  reluc- 
tant to  intervene  in  the  affairs  of  her  self- 
governing  colonies  without  special  invitation, 
except  in  respect  to  the  selection  and  control 
of  strategical  positions  regarded  as  important 
for  the  defence  of  the  Empire„  One,  and  one 
only  (interesting),  exception  to  the  rule,  that 
the  British  colonies  shall  not  treat  directly 
with  foreign  powers,  has  been  made,  and  that 
in  the  case  of  Canada  ;  which,  unquestionably 
in  view  of  her  possible  reciprocal  trade  rela- 
tions with  the  United  States,  is  allowed  to 
negotiate  directly  with  foreign  nations  in  .re- 
spect to  her  commercial  tariff.  England  does 
not  attempt,  and  never  has  attempted,  to  en- 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,     29 

force  her  free-trade  policy  in  any  of  her  self- 
governing  colonies.  On  the  other  hand,  Great 
Britain  will  not  abandon  her  own  free-trade 
policy  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  preferential 
treatment  in  her  colonies.  Thus  Canada,  as 
well  as  other  of  the  British  colonies,  having 
adopted  the  ''  protective  "  policy,  accordingly 
imposes  duties  on  her  imports  which  in  some 
instances  are  very  high,  and  almost  prohibi- 
tive. But  whatever  may  be  the  tariff  rates 
established  by  Canada,  or  by  any  of  the  other 
British  colonies,  they  are  uniform  as  respects 
the  imports  of  all  nations  ;  and  no  discriminat- 
ing rates  would  be  sanctioned  by  the  Imperial 
Government  in  any  colonial  tariff  rates  unless 
to  meet  an  equivalent  discriminatipn.^  The 
fact  also  that  the  tariff  rates  of  Canada  are 
regarded  by  the  mercantile  community  of  Eng- 
land as  prejudicial  to  their  interests,  and  have 
long  been  a  subject  of  complaint,  has  never 
induced  the  Home  Government  to  take  action 
on  the  subject.  Another  illustration  to  the 
same  effect  is  to   be  found  in  the  fact,  that 

*  It  is  now  a  rule  of  the  Imperial  Government  not  to  include  her 
colojiies  in  any  commercial  arrangement  with  foreign  countries  with- 
out their  own  consent.  The  law  officers  of  the  Crown  have  also  held 
that  under  certain  recent  treaties  her  colonies  are  prevented  from 
granting  any  differential  favors  to  Great  Britain. 


30      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

when  the  Council  of  India  (the  immediate  gov- 
erning power  of  that  country),  partly  for  the 
purpose  of  revenue,  and  partly  at  the  demand 
of  Indian  manufacturers  for  protection,  im- 
posed a  custom  tax  on  the  importation  of 
cotton  fabrics  into  India,  the  manufacturers  of 
England  united  in  opposition  to  such  an  ex- 
tent that  it  constituted  an  important  element 
in  the  recent  election  that  resulted  in  the  dis- 
placement of  the  Liberal  (Rosebery)  adminis- 
tration ;  and  yet  the  Indian  duties  on  the 
importation  of  British  cotton  fabrics  have  not 
as  yet  been  abrogated. 

The  allegation  that  the  British  Government 
exacts  tributes  of  its  subjects  has  not  even  so 
much  as  a  shadow  of  a  foundation.  The  Brit- 
ish Government  has  respected  the  possessions 
of  the  native  chiefs  of  India  ;  and  about  one- 
third  of  the  country  still  nominally  remains  in 
the  hands  of  its  hereditary  rulers.  These,  in 
return  for  their  maintenance  and  protection  by 
the  Imperial  Government,  contribute  annually 
from  their  resources  a  comparatively  small 
sum  for  its  support ;  which  appears  in  the  of- 
ficial financial  statements  under  the  name  of 
*'  Tribute,"  or  *'  Contributions,"  from  *'  Feuda- 
tory States."     But  the  sum  thus   received  is 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.      3 1 

probably  more  than  paid  back  in  the  form  of 
annual  pensions  to  the  native  princes  and 
their  families,  and  in  expenses  contingent 
on  the  supervision  of  their  governmental  ad- 
ministrations. England  does  not  take  from 
any  of  her  citizens  or  subjects  as  much 
as  a  sixpence  which  can  merit  the  name  of 
tribute.  She  expects  that  such  of  her  col- 
onies as  have  sought  and  been  accorded  the 
right  of  self-government  will,  in  the  main,  de- 
fray the  expenses  of  such  government.  And 
this  they  do  by  such  methods  of  taxation  as 
legislators  chosen  by  them  shall  determine  ; 
subject  only  to  the  limitation  that  the  taxes 
imposed  shall  be  uniform  on  all  persons  and 
on  all  subjects  of  trade  or  commerce.  Thus 
the  comparatively  small  island  of  Jamaica, 
with  a  population  in  1891  of  639,431,  of  which 
more  than  two-thirds  are  negroes,  has  a  legis- 
lative assembly,  and  by  its  enactment  collects 
a  considerable  revenue  from  export  duties  on 
rum.  But  if  an  Englishman  desires  to  export 
this  commodity  from  Jamaica  he  cannot  do  it 
under  any  more  favorable  terms  than  are  ac- 
corded to  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  or  of 
any  other  country.  Even  the  very  small  group 
of  West   India   Islands  known  as  the  *'  Cay- 


32      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

mans,"  with  a  population  of  less  than  five 
thousand,  have  their  own  legislative  council 
and  enact  their  own  laws. 

In  all  of  the  thirty-one  colonies  of  England, 
which  are  not  self-governing,  and  in  which  the 
Crown  has  an  effective  control  of  legislation, 
and  also  over  the  public  officers,  special  atten- 
tion is  given  to  popular  education  ;  and  schools 
have  been  established,  which,  as  a  rule,  are 
free  and  non-sectarian,  are  liberally  aided  by 
Government  grants,  and  attendance  upon 
which  is  often  compulsory.  Thus,  in  the  island 
of  Jamaica,  there  w^ere  in  1892  nearly  nine 
hundred  government  schools,  besides  many 
private  schools.  In  South  Africa — Cape  Col- 
ony— the  British  Government  makes  large 
annual  grants  in  aid  of  education  in  every 
stage.  The  number  of  assisted  schools  is 
about  one  thousand,  and  in  aid  of  them  the 
Government  grants  about  an  equal  sum  with 
that  raised  by  free  and  voluntary  effort.  In- 
dustrial training  is  also  specially  provided  for 
boys  and  girls  of  the  aboriginal  population,  of 
whom  about  fifty  thousand  at  present  are 
reported  as  attending  school.  Even  in  the 
rhuch  criticised  little  colony  of  Honduras, 
in    Central    America,    with   a   population    of 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,     33 

less  than  30,000,  and  the  only  one  of  the 
Central  American  States  south  of  Mexico 
that  does  not  habitually  revolutionize,  the 
Government  aids  in  the  keeping  up  of  de- 
nominational schools,  as  none  other  prob- 
ably would  be  countenanced  by  the  people ; 
but  subjects  them  to  regular  and  close  inspec- 
tion. 

During  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  the 
Established  Church  of  England  has  collected 
and  expended  more  than  $400,000,000  for 
foreign  and  domestic  missions,  for  building 
and  repairing  churches,  and  for  other  religious 
objects.  In  addition  it  is  also  estimated,  that 
Englishmen  of  different  creeds  and  denomina- 
tions at  present  contribute  for  domestic  re- 
ligious purposes  about  $50,000,000  annually. 
As  to  the  extent  of  the  private  charity  of  the 
people  of  the  United  Kingdom,  some  idea  may 
be  formed  from  the  fact  that  $25,000,000  is 
believed  to  be  annually  contributed  in  London 
alone  for  such  objects. 

In  fact  England  leads  the  way  in  her  efforts, 
independent  of  creed  or  sects,  to  educate  the 
world's  population,  and  probably  accomplishes 
more  in  this  direction  than  all  the  rest  of  the 
civilized  and  christianized  nations. 


34      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

A  half  century  ago  England,  at  the  cost  of 
$100,000,000,  and  without  shedding  a  drop  of 
blood,  abolished  slavery.  A  quarter  of  a 
century  later  the  United  States  effected  the 
same  result  at  a  cost  of  several  hundred  thou- 
sand lives,  and  over  nine  thousand  millions  of 
money,  or  property. 

Note  next  what  England  has  further  accom- 
plished in  this  direction.  In  1843,  she  abol- 
ished slavery  in  all  her  East  India  possessions, 
and  in  one  day  made  12,000,000  people  free. 
Previous  to  1890,  the  group  of  islands  and  a 
coast  strip  of  about  12,000  square  miles,  known 
as  Zanzibar,  was  the  headquarters  of  the  slave- 
traders  of  eastern  Africa,  and  the  greatest 
slave-market  of  the  world.  The  influence  of 
the  Sultan  of  Zanzibar,  in  favor  of  slavery,  was 
paramount  also  from  the  eastern  coast  of  Africa 
even  as  far  into  the  interior  as  the  head-waters 
of  the  Congo.  In  1890,  England  assumed  a 
protectorate  over  Zanzibar,  and  almost  con- 
temporaneously that  country  ceased  to  be  a 
slave-market,  and  its  wily  Arab  slave-traders 
soon  learned  from  bitter  experience  with  a 
portion  of  England's  navy  detailed  for  their 
supervision,  that  any  further  attempts  to  im- 
port slaves  from  eastern  Africa  was  attendant 


The  United  Slates  and  Great  Britain.     35 

with  imminent  deadly  perils  to  those  prosecut- 
ing such  business. 

Again,  one  of  the  most  recent  results  of  the 
British  occupation  of  Egypt  has  been  a  practi- 
cal abolition  of  human  slavery.  Under  existing 
regulations  (established  during  the  past  year, 
1895),  every  slave  in  "Egypt  (a  former  great 
market  for  the  enslaved  people  of  Africa)  may 
demand  his  manumission  if  he  chooses ;  and  if 
the  Soudan  be  retaken  by  Egyptian  troops 
under  British  leadership,  it  will  be  equivalent 
to  opening  the  prison  doors  to  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  captives. 

The  general  result  of  this  policy  of  England 
may  be  finally  summed  up  by  saying,  that  to- 
day wherever  the  British  flag  floats  in  sover- 
eignty no  man  can,  under  any  circumstances, 
hold  any  other  man  as  a  slave. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  naturally 
and  rightfully  take  pride  in  the  declaration  of 
their  ancestors  that  **  all  men  are  created 
equal,"  and  "  endowed  by  their  Creator  "  with 
an  inalienable  right  to  liberty.  But  what  the 
descendants  of  these  ancestors  have  done  to 
exemplify  and  enforce  this  great  declaration, 
will  when  tested  by  evidence,  not  be  found  to 
compare  favorably  with  what  England,  without 
vaunting  herself,  has  practically  accomplished. 


2,6      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

A  reflection  is  made  on  England  for  mas- 
sacring  tribes  of  black  men  In  Africa  with 
machine  guns.  But  machine  guns  could  never 
be  used  for  a  better  purpose  than  to  put  a  stop 
at  once  and  forever,  as  England  has  done 
wherever  she  has  sovereignty,  to  the  ancient 
and  horrible  savagery  of  human  sacrifices  and 
cannibalism.  And  when  England  has  once 
put  down  savagery,  that  rendered  civilization 
impossible,  her  treatment  of  the  subjugated 
and  uncivilized  has  always  been  merciful.  The 
conquered  Kafflr  or  Zulu  of  South  Africa  has 
become  under  English  rule  a  freeman,  en- 
dowed for  the  first  time  with  an  absolute  title 
to  land,  and  other  property  the  results  of  his 
own  labor  ;  and  if  Injustice  Is  done  him  the 
English  court  is  open  to  him  for  redress  and 
protection  as  speedily  and  Impartially  as  to  any 
white  man. 

The  British  American  colonies  have  never 
warred  with  their  Indians,  and  never  robbed 
them  of  their  land,  but  have  always  dealt  kindly 
and  justly  by  them.  A  current  proverb  in  the 
United  States,  that  the  only  good  Indian  is  a 
dead  Indian,  finds  no  favor  in  Canada.  Eng- 
land, moreover,  Is  the  only  nation  that  has 
ever  established  a  hospital  exclusively  for  the 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,     3  7 

care  of  sick  or  suffering  North  American  In- 
dians, On  the  other  hand,  the  treatment  of 
our  Indians  by  the  United  States  has  always 
been  notoriously  arbitrary  and  bad.  It  has 
sequestered  their  land  ;  arbitrarily  abrogated 
its  treaties  with  them  ;  almost  continually  pro- 
voked them  to  hostilities,  and  nearly  effected 
their  extermination. 

Senator  Hawley  extends  an  invitation  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  to  ''look  at  the 
map  of  India,  and  stop  and  think,"  for  the 
purpose  of  understanding  **  the  kind  of  nation 
that  we  are  facing":  **  for  now  India  is  all  a 
British  possession."  This  is  most  excellent 
advice.  Let  us  accept  it.  Before  England 
acquired  control  of  India,  the  mass  of  her  great 
population  was  almost  as  low  down  in  the 
scale  of  civilization  as  it  was  possible  to  con- 
ceive. From  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
and  probably  for  unnumbered  centuries  before, 
the  experience  of  the  country  had  been  one  of 
constant  war  and  disorder,  contingent  in  great 
part  on  foreign  invasions,  and  in  part  on  the 
bitter  antagonism  of  domestic  religious  creeds 
and  diversity  of  races.  The  Indian  ryot 
(peasant)  was  practically  a  slave,  with  no 
acknowledged    right   to    the  products  of   his 


38      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

labor  ;  and  when  any  one,  of  either  high  or 
low  degree,  acquired  anything  in  the  way  of 
money-wealth,  it  was  almost  the  universal 
practice  to  speedily  secrete  it  under  ground^ 
to  prevent  its  arbitrary  plunder  on  the  part  of 
rulers  ;  so  that  the  amount  of  buried  treasure, 
even  to  this  day,  in  India  is  regarded  as  almost 
fabulous.  There  can  be  no  denial  that  Eng- 
land acquired  control  of  India  in  the  first  in- 
stance by  conquest  and  arbitrary  methods. 
But  in  this  respect  she  acted  in  accordance 
with  the  then  accepted  policy  of  all  other 
nations  ;  and  as  at  the  time  when  England 
mainly  acquired  possession  of  India  the  United 
States  did  not  exist,  and  her  people  were  a 
part  of  England,  and  as  they  did  not  protest, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  they  can  now  animad- 
vert on  the  action  of  England  without  passing 
censure  on  themselves.  It  is  also  well  to  re- 
call that  England  never  did  a  meaner  thing  in 
respect  to  the  acquisition  of  territory  than  did 
the  United  States  in  1848,  when,  under  a  claim 
of  hicrher  civilization,  she  robbed,  without 
justification,  and  at  ''  one  fell  swoop,"  poor 
Mexico  of  more  than  one  half  of  all  its 
territory. 

The  point  of  interest  in  respect  to  England's 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,     39 

connection  with  India  is  not  what  she  did  a 
hundred  years  and  more  ago,  but  what  she  has 
done  within  a  comparatively  recent  period, 
and  what  she  is  doing  now.  Her  work  of 
ameliorating  the  condition  of  her  Indian  sub- 
jects virtually  commenced  in  1 843,  when  slavery 
(as  before  stated)  was  abolished  in  all  of  her 
East  Indian  possessions.  To-day  the  humblest 
Indian  peasant  is  secure  in  the  possession  and 
control  of  his  property,  and  if  wronged  in  any 
way  can  appeal  to  and  find  protection  in  the 
courts  which  England  has  established.  As 
one  result  of  this  policy  the  buried  treasures 
of  India  are  beginning  to  come  forth  and  seek 
investment  in  England's  interest-bearing  se- 
curities. Under  native  and  Mogul  rulers,  the 
only  compulsory  contribution  from  the  Indian 
people,  worthy  of  the  name  of  a  tax,  was  an 
assessment  on  land,  which  averaged  about 
twelve  shillings  per  acre.  To-day  the  land  tax 
of  India,  which  the  Government  has  been 
obliged  to  maintain  for  general  revenue  pur- 
poses, does  not  average  more  than  $1.53  per 
acre.  Before  England  assumed  dominion 
in  India  the  system  of  exaction  of  her  native 
rulers  was  so  perfected  that  they  were  assured 
of  the  very  last  penny  that  could  be  taken  from 


40      The  United  States  and  Great  Britai 


n. 


the  farmers  and  cattle  raisers  without  stripping 
them  of  everything  ;  leaving  to  the  tenant  class 
little  other  than  the  privilege  of  living.  To- 
day the  existing  system  of  taxation  In  India  is 
conceded  to  be,  at  least,  eminently  just.  Men 
of  native  races  constitute  a  part  of  the  highest 
Indian  judiciary  ;  and  by  an  act  affirmed  by 
the  Imperial  Government  It  has  been  ordained 
"•  that  no  native  of  the  territories  of  India,  or 
any  natural-born  subject  of  Great  Britain  resi- 
dent therein,  shall,  by  reason  of  his  religion, 
birth,  descent,  color,  or  any  one  of  them,  be 
disabled  from  any  place,  ofhce,  or  employment 
under  Its  government."  Under  native  rule, 
the  population  of  India  was  kept  down  by  war 
and  local  feuds  to  a  great  extent  ;  but  under 
the  British  rule  of  peace  it  has  increased  to  a 
degree  so  disproportionate  to  existing  agricul- 
tural resources,  that  famines  are  often  con- 
tingent on  the  deficiency  of  crops  through 
natural  Influences.  To  meet  such  a  lament- 
able condition  of  affairs  the  British  Govern- 
ment has  reserved  from  its  annual  revenues, 
and  so  created,  a  large  **  famine  fund,"  which 
is  solely  applicable  to  relieving  popular  distress 
occasioned  by  a  scarcity  of  food.  Has  any- 
thing like  this  ever  been  done  by  any  other 


The  United  States  and  Gi^eat  Britain,     4 1 

civilized  and  Christianized  Government  ?  In 
fact,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  present 
population  of  India  would  not  have  found  food 
under  any  previous  government  of  that 
country  ;  and  that  its  very  existence  has  been 
made  possible  only  through  the  conditions  of 
food  production  and  distribution  established 
by  England's  government. 

How  considerately  and  kindly  the  British 
Government  has  dealt  with  the  people  of  India 
under  its  rule  is  further  demonstrated  by  the 
following  additional  evidence.  When  Warren 
Hastings  was  Governor  of  Bengal  (or  in  1772) 
he  laid  down  a  rule  that  "in  all  suits  regarding 
marriage,  inheritance,  and  caste,  and  other  re- 
ligious usages  and  institutions,  the  laws  of  the 
Koran  with  respect  to  Mohammedans,  and 
those  of  the  Shaster  with  respect  to  Gentoos 
(Hindus),  should  be  invariably  adhered  to." 
And  this  regard  for  native  creed  and  usage  is 
still  maintained.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
criminal  law  and  the  law  of  civil  and  criminal 
procedures  throughout  all  of  India  has  been 
changed  to  make  it  conformable  to  the  Eng- 
lish codes  ;  and  one  recognized  effect  of  this 
has  been  to  impress  on  a  vast  area  of  humanity, 
over  which  brute  force  formerly  reigned,  a  good 


42      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

deal  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  respect  for  law.  It  is 
also  worthy  of  note  in  this  connection  that 
under  English  rule  not  a  few  old-time  immoral 
customs — as  the  "suttee,"  or  the  burning  of 
widows,  and  female  infanticide — have  been 
prohibited  by  law. 

Popular  education  in  India  is  systematically 
promoted  by  England  ;  and  the  number  of 
schools  supported  or  aided  by  public  funds, 
and  controlled  by  departments  of  education  in 
every  province,  is  now  upwards  of  150,000; 
rising  from  elementary  village  schools  to  high 
schools  and  colleges. 

Since  the  Indian  mutiny  in  1 857,  the  Govern- 
ment has  expended  a  large  amount — at  present 
many  millions  per  annum — on  works  of  public 
utility  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  and 
cheapening  (through  roads,  canals,  and  rail- 
roads) the  means  of  transportation,  for  pro-  . 
moting  irrigation,  and  especially  for  favoring 
the  use  of  new  tools  and  new  methods  for 
cultivating  the  soil.  The  result  of  this  policy 
has  been  greatly  to  increase  the  annual  food 
product  of  the  country  and  the  opportunities 
for  the  industrial  employment  of  its  people. 
Thus  in  1880  India  exported  less  than  500,000 
bushels  of  wheat,  but  at  the  present  time  her 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     43 

annual  export  is  not  less  than  40,000,000 
bushels.  The  expansion  of  India's  commerce 
has  been  greater  in  recent  years  than  that  of 
her  population  ;  and  within  a  decade  has  in- 
creased forty-two  per  cent,  and  population  onl) 
ten  per  cent. 

One  blessing  which  the  British  occupation 
of  India  has  given  the  world  should  not  be 
overlooked.  Formerly  all  cinchona  bark,  from 
which  quinine  is  manufactured,  came  from  the 
forests  of  the  northwestern  states  of  South 
America  ;  and  as  the  cinchona  trees  were  not 
under  any  system  of  cultivation,  and  as  the 
methods  of  collecting  their  bark  were  destruc- 
tive of  the  tree,  it  was  easy  to  see  that,  under 
a  continually  increasing  demand,  this  most  im- 
portant natural  product  would  soon  be  ex- 
hausted. Moved  by  such  considerations,  the 
Government  of  England  determined  to  make 
the  attempt  to  cultivate  the  cinchona  tree  in 
India,  and,  calling  in  the  aid  of  the  best  botan- 
ists, finally  succeeded  in  so  doing,  although'  a 
previous  effort  in  the  same  direction  on  the 
part  of  the  Dutch  Government  had  failed  in 
Java.  The  result  has  been  that  the  supply  of 
quinine  Is -now  practically  Inexhaustible;  and 
in  place  of  being  formerly  worth  its  weight  in 


44      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

gold,  its  price  is  now  brought  within  the  means 
of  the  poorest  people,  who  most  need  it.  How 
British  Indian  quinine  has  become  an  instru- 
mentality of  war,  as  well  as  of  peace,  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  the  French  in  Madagascar, 
and  the  Spaniards  in  Cuba,  have  recently 
deemed  an  adequate  supply  of  it  as  essential 
as  that  of  shot  or  shell. 

In  short,  there  is  no  government  in  the 
world  whose  administration  is  more  honestly 
conducted,  and  which  is  doing  more  for  the 
material  good  of  the  governed,  than  the  pres- 
ent English  Government  of  India.  And  the 
secret  of  England's  success  in  ruling  the  vast 
congeries  of  people  known  as  India,  a  fifth  of 
the  population  of  the  globe — 288,000,000  in 
1 89 1 , — made  up  of  different  races  and  religions, 
and  with  eighty  different  languages,  is  mainly 
due  to  the  fact  that  in  no  country,  except 
America  and  Great  Britain,  is  the  individual 
so  little  interfered  with  by  the  Government. 
No  kind  of  pressure  is  put  upon  the  Indian  to 
be  anything  but  what  he  pleases.  He  is  ex- 
empt from  military  conscription.  He  may 
profess  what  religion  he  likes ;  express  any 
opinion  ;  enjoy  the  right  of  public  meeting  ; 
and  can  criticise  the  Government  freely  with- 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     45 

out  fear  of  consequences.  And  the  attitude 
of  the  EngHsh  Government  towards  its  sub- 
jects in  later  years,  not  only  in  India,  but  in 
all  her  other  colonies  and  dependencies,  has 
been  always  one  of  help  and  encouragement. 

England  however,  does  not  control  all  of 
India.  The  Portuguese,  who  were  the  pio- 
neers in  Eastern  conquest,  still  retain  a  do- 
minion over  about  1500  square  miles  on  the 
west  coast  of  the  Hindostan,  and  its  native 
inhabitants  are  now  in  revolt.  Portugal  has 
sent  a  military  force  from  Europe  to  suppress 
it,  and  its  governor  in  command  has  made 
proclamation  to  the  rebels  that,  unless  they  lay 
down  their  arms,  means  will  be  taken  for  their 
extermination,  that  villages  will  be  burnt  or 
destroyed  in  succession,  and  all  in  arms  will  be 
liable  to  be  shot.  The  people  of  British 
India  are  at  peace ;  and,  if  the  Portuguese 
rebels  are  successful,  they  will  probably  like 
nothing  better  than  to  come  under  the  sover- 
eignty of  England.  Since  the  great  rebellion 
in  1857,  the  military  forces  of  England  have 
not  been  employed  except  to  compel  the 
barbarous  people  on  her  frontiers  —  the 
Afghans  and  the  Chitals — to  keep  the  peace. 
And  the  cause  of  this  famous  mutiny  is  now 


46      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

well  known  to  have  been  due  mainly  to  an 
assumption  on  the  part  of  the  Sepoys,  not 
that  they  were  politically  oppressed,  but  that 
they  were  obliged  to  grease  their  cartridges 
with  the  fat  of  the  accursed  swine. 

Another  even  more  instructive  illustration 
of  the  treatment  and  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  England  in  respect  to  her  subjects  or 
dependants,  is  to  be  found  in  the  recent 
experience  of  Egypt.  Previous  to  the  English 
protectorate,  consequent  upon  the  suppression 
of  the  rebellion  under  Arabi-Pasha  in  1882, 
the  condition  of  the  country  was  wretched 
almost  beyond  conception.  Its  revenue  system, 
in  accordance  with  Asiatic  ideas,  comprehen- 
ded nearly  every  form  of  iniquitous  extortion. 
Under  the  rule  of  Ismail- Pasha  (the  Khedive 
who  built  the  Suez  Canal  with  the  enforced 
and  unpaid  labor  of  his  subjects),  the  revenue 
annually  collected  from  less  than  6,000,000, 
population  was  estimated  at  about  ;^  16,000,000 
($80,000,000)  ;  while,  apart  from  this  sum,  the 
amount  that  was  wrung  from  the  miserable 
peasantry,  which  never  found  its  way  into  any 
official  ledger,  was  also  very  considerable. 
The  first  thing  an  English  finance  committee 
of  experts  effected,  was  to  reduce  the  annual 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     47 

taxation  of  $80,000,000  to  $50,000,000,  which, 
apart  from  money  terms,  included  a  sum  total 
of  vexatious  and  petty  exactions  that  cannot 
well  be  expressed  in  figures.  The  results  of 
a  continuance  of  this  policy  by  England  has 
been  almost  without  precedent  in  the  world's 
fiscal  history. 

For  the  first  time  since  the  days  of  the 
Roman  administration,  order  and  prosperity 
reign  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile. 

At  no  previous  period  since  Egypt  began  to 
have  a  name  has  the  fellah  lived  under  a  gov- 
ernment so  careful  to  protect  his  rights.  For 
the  first  time  he  is  allowed  to  control  the  fruits 
of  his  labor.  To-day,  under  British  domina- 
tion, every  Egyptian  peasant  knows  exactly 
the  amount  of  taxes  he  has  to  pay,  and  when 
he  has  to  pay  them ;  and  that,  when  he  has 
once  paid  the  legal  amount,  no  official,  big  or 
small,  has  the  power  to  extort  from  him  one 
single  piastre  beyond  it.  He  knows,  too,  that 
he  cannot  at  any  moment  be  seized  and 
dragged  off  as  formerly,  perhaps  to  some  dif- 
ferent part  of  the  country,  to  work  under  con- 
stant dread  of  the  whip;  at  any  task  suggested 
by  the  caprice  of  the  Khedive  or  of  some 
powerful  pasha.     The  use  of  the  lash,  the  for- 


48      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

mer  invariable  accompaniment  of  compulsory 
and  unpaid  labor,  is  now  also  absolutely  pro- 
hibited. 

When  England  first  occupied  the  country 
the  four-per-cent  Egyptian  debt  securities  were 
quoted  at  about  50,  and  not  long  before  had 
been  rated  as  low  as  27.  To-day  their  quo- 
tation is  over  100,  with  a  reduction  of  their 
originally  stipulated  interest. 

Under  such  circumstances  Egypt  has  never, 
certainly  not  within  a  recent  period,  enjoyed 
so  large  a  measure  of  prosperity.  Notwith- 
standing the  recent  universal  decline  in  price 
of  agricultural  staples,  the  Egyptian  products 
and  exports  of  cotton,  sugar,  tobacco,  wheat, 
etc.,  have  rapidly  increased,  and  at  present  are 
much  greater  than  at  any  former  period.  The 
annual  increase  in  the  great  staple  product  of 
Egyptian  agriculture — cotton — from  the  aver- 
age of  1884-89  to  that  of  1 893- 94  was  nearly 
a  hundred  per  cent.,  whereby  the  cultivator 
was  not  only  able  to  pay  his  taxes  more  easily, 
but  have  more  money  left  for  his  own  needs. 

Fifty  years  ago  the  accusations  now  pre- 
ferred by  Messrs.  Cullom,  Dickinson,  Hawley, 
Lodge,  Chandler,  Capen,  and  others,  who  as- 
sume to  be   statesmen,   wise  legislators,   and 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     49 

instructors  of  the  people,  against  England  for 
greed,  ''grab-all"  and  ''monopoly"  policies, 
had  undoubtedly  some  foundation.  At  that 
time  the  whole  commercial  policy  of  England, 
and  of  all  other  countries  claiming  to  be  in  any 
degree  civilized,  was  based  on  the  theory  that 
commerce  could  benefit  one  country  only  to 
the  extent  that  it  injured  another ;  and  that  it 
was  the  part  of  wisdom  always  to  secure  a 
favorable  balance  of  trade  by  selling  as  much 
and  buying  as  little  as  possible,  and  receiving 
pay  for  what  was  sold,  not  in  other  useful  pro- 
ducts, but  in  gold.  And  this  is  the  theory  that 
to-day  characterizes  the  commerce  and  trade 
policy  of  all  nations — especially  the  United 
States — except  England.  Forty  odd  years 
ago  England  came  to  the  conclusion  that  her 
supremacy  over  the  earth  could  best  be  at- 
tained by  supremacy  in  trade  rather  than  by 
supremacy  of  the  sword,  and  that  the  exclu- 
sive trade  of  any  colony  or  people  that  has  to 
be  fought  for  costs  more  than  it  is  all  worth. 
And  between  1845  and  1856  she  inaugurated 
this  latter  policy  by  substantially  removing  all 
restrictions  on  the  trade  and  commerce  of  her 
own  immediate  people,  i,  e,,  of  the  United 
Kingdom.       And,    what    is    generally    over- 


50      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

looked,  she  gave  also  to  the  300,000,000  of 
other  people  over  which  her  sovereignty  ex- 
tends the  privilege  of  according  or  refusing 
reciprocal  action.  In  this  respect  England 
stands  alone.  No  other  nation  that  has  ever 
existed,  or  now  exists,  has  ever  adopted  a 
similar  policy.  The  following  illustrations 
exemplify  it. 

It  is  alleged  that  if  the  United  States  does 
not  speedily  annex  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  Eng- 
land or  some  other  European  power  will  grab 
them.  Let  us  see  what  certainly  would  happen 
if  the  United  States,  or  any  of  the  great  Euro- 
pean powers,  except  England,  should  grab. 
The  first  thing  that  they  would  do  would  be 
to  draw  a  line  about  the  islands,  restricting  to 
a  great  degree  all  commercial  intercourse  be- 
tween them  and  other  nations.  If  the  policy  ad- 
vocated by  Mr.  McKinley  were  to  prevail,  com- 
mercial restriction  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  would  amount  almost  to  prohibition. 
If  France  were  to  grab  them,  her  commercial 
regulations  would  probably  be  patterned  after 
the  provisions  for  conquered  Madagascar, 
which  make  that  great  island  an  almost  exclu- 
sive French  province,  and  absolutely  prohibit 
the  importation  of  great  staple  articles  from 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,     5 1 

any  other  country  than  France  and  her  colonies. 
The  same  prohibition  tariff  provisions  have  also 
been  made  applicable  to  the  French  colonies 
in  Indo-China.  The  recent  imposition  by 
France  of  adverse  and  discriminating  duties 
on  shoes  imported  from  the  United  States 
would  also  probably  be  made  operative  in 
Hawaii.^  If  Russia  should  obtain  possession 
of  these  islands,  and  establish  her  home  policy 
over  them,  none  other  than  a  Russian  could 
obtain  a  freehold  title  to  any  land.  No  im- 
portations would  be  allowed  that  Russian  pro- 

'  England  is  the  only  country  in  Europe  open  to  French  produce 
of  all  kinds  without  duty,  save  only  in  those  cases  where  there  are 
countervailing  excise  duties  in  England  itself.  What,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  the  situation  of  English  merchandise  which  enters  into 
France  ?  All  English  manufactures,  yarns,  tissues,  iron  of  all 
kinds,  machinery,  implements,  clothing,  chemical  products,  in  short, 
everything  that  is  manufactured,  and  even  some  raw  materials,  have 
imposed  upon  them  duties  which,  in  many  cases,  amount  to  fifty  per 
cent,  ad  valorem. 

English  ships  are  excluded  from  the  French  and  American  coast- 
ing trade.  The  coasting  trade  of  England  is  open  to  all  French  and 
American  ships,  which  pay,  in  English  ports,  no  other  local  taxes 
than  those  which  are  imposed  at  the  same  time  upon  English  vessels. 

The  French  Government  and  French  producers  say  that  since 
France  has  made  sacrifices  to  create  colonies  and  protectorates,  the 
markets  there  ought  to  be  reserved  to  the  national  industries. 

England  has  also  made  sacrifices  to  found  colonies,  but  she  has 
never  proceeded  to  impose  protective  duties,  and  she  opens  these 
countries  with  their  nearly  300,000,000  of  inhabitants  to  French 
commerce,  without  exacting  any  other  duties  than  those  that  are 
paid  by  English  merchandise. 


52      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

ducers  would  like  to  supply  ;  no  language 
would  be  officially  tolerated  except  Russian, 
and  no  religion  except  that  of  the  Greek 
Church.  The  Government  would  be  in  the 
highest  degree  despotic.  If  Spain  grabbed, 
we  know  what  her  policy  would  be  from  the 
experience  of  Cuba.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
the  island  should  pass  under  the  sovereignty 
of  England,  restrictions  on  trade  and  com- 
merce, foreign  and  domestic,  would  be  reduced 
to  a  minimum  ;  popular  government,  in  which 
all  nationalities  would  participate,  would  be 
established,  with  English  common  law  as  its 
basis  ;  the  rights  of  the  natives,  as  well  as  of 
all  other  citizens,  would  be  guarded ;  and, 
above  all,  a  national  sanitary  system,  copied 
from  that  of  India,  the  best  in  the  world, 
and  admirably  adapted  to  the  fifteen  differ- 
ent races  which  recent  anthropological  investi- 
gations have  shown  are  now  being  propagated 
in  the  islands,  would  be  speedily  introduced. 

The  annals  of  history  will  be  searched  in 
vain  to  find  better  and  more  instructive  object 
lessons,  touching  the  influence  of  governments, 
for  better  or  worse,  on  the  people  governed, 
than  are  afforded  by  the  experience  and  pres- 
ent condition  of  three  of  the  most  naturally 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,     53 

attractive  areas,  for  industrial  development 
and  individual  prosperity,  on  the  earth's  sur- 
face, namely  :  the  three  great  West  India 
Islands,  of  Hayti,  Cuba,  and  Jamaica.  Of 
the  first,  the  Government,  although  nomi- 
nally a  Republic,  is  practically  a  despotism  of 
the  Asiatic  type.  Its  other  leading  character- 
istics are  :  a  primitive  system  of  agriculture ; 
an  absence  of  good  roads,  and  no  railroads  ; 
a  ferocious  antagonism  of  races — i.  e.^  blacks 
and  mulattoes  ;  a  constitution  that  prohibits 
the  white  races  from  holding  real  estate  ;  and  a 
social  system  that  also  renders  it  unsafe  for  a 
white  man  to  travel  in  the  country.  At  a  not 
very  remote  period  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States  sent  one  of  its 
most  respected  bishops  to  Hayti,  to  consecrate 
a  church  and  install  a  suitable  minister  to  con- 
duct its  services.  The  American  bishop  on 
his  return  stated,  that  on  the  very  day  on 
which  he  fulfilled  the  object  of  his  mission, 
and  at  but  a  comparatively  short  distance 
removed  (i.e.,  by  an  intervening  mountain 
ridge  of  low  elevation),  there  was  a  reported 
celebration  of  "voudoo,"  or  demon-worship, 
accompanied  by  human  sacrifice. 

With  the  desolation  and  prospective  tem- 


54      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

porary  ruin  of  the  island  of  Cuba,  sometimes 
called  ''The  Pearl  of  the  Antilles," undeniably 
the  result  of  bad  government,  all  are  familiar. 
In  Jamaica,  the  third  of  this  group  of  West 
India  Islands,  whose  natural  conditions  are 
almost  identical  with  those  of  Hayti,  and 
whose  population,  as  in  Hayti,  is  mainly 
colored — 610,579  negroes  and  mulattoes  and 
14,692  whites  in  1891, — the  situation  under 
England's  supervision  is  entirely  different. 
Peace  and  order  prevail ;  property  is  secure  ; 
the  average  death-rate  low  ;  taxes  on  cultivated 
land,  six  cents  per  acre ;  education  of  the 
masses  carefully  provided ;  facilities  for  in- 
land communication  and  ready  access  to  the 
markets  of  the  world  established  ;  and  pros- 
pective advantages  for  the  investment  of 
capital  exceedingly  promising  to  American 
investors.  In  view  of  such  an  exhibit  can  any 
intelligent  citizen  of  the  United  States  doubt 
as  to  which  of  the  three  systems  of  govern- 
ment involved  it  is  his  interest  to  promote  ? 

The  bearing  also  of  the  commercial  policy 
of  England  upon  the  Venezuelan  question, 
which  thus  far  has  hardly  attracted  the  atten- 
tion of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  is 
really  the  only  point  involved  that  materially 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,     55 

affects  their  interest,  and  as  such  is  more 
worthy  of  their  serious  consideration  than  any 
other.  As  is  well  known,  there  have  been 
repeated  attempts  to  settle  the  difficulties 
between  England  and  Venezuela  by  arbitra- 
tion, and  all  of  them  have  thus  far  resulted 
in  failure.  For  what  reason  ?  Obviously 
not  from  disagreement  about  the  partition  of 
sovereignty  over  a  tract  of  tropical  wilderness, 
in  which  no  white  man  would  ever  care  to 
permanently  live,  and  which  there  is  no  proba- 
bility that  Venezuela,  with  its  sparse  and 
mongrel  population,  would  ever  attempt  to 
colonize,  or  properly  and  peacefully  govern. 
Apart  from  certain  minor  considerations,  the 
real  reason  of  disagreement  has  been  that 
England  wants  free  navigation  of  the  Orinoco, 
and  Venezuela  does  not.  Any  doubt  on  this 
point  ought  to  be  at  once  removed  by  refer- 
ence to  an  official  letter,  addressed  under  date 
of  February  17,  1890,  by  Senor  Paraza,  then 
Venezuelan  Minister  at  Washington,  to  Mr. 
Blaine,  the  then  United  States  Secretary  of 
State,  in  which  he  says  :  If  Great  Britain 
is  allowed  to  control  the  Orinoco  "  her  vessels 
would  enter  the  mouth  of  that  river ^  and  wotild 
carry    to  the  great  centres  of  population  her 


56      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

p7^oducttons,  her  ideas^  and  her  exclusive  inter- 
est''\  and  to  prevent  such  a  result,  which, 
according  to  Senor  Paraza,  ''would  render 
nugatory  the  efforts  that  are  now  being  made 
by  the  nations  of  America  to  draw  closer  their 
family  bonds  and  have  one  and  the  same 
destiny,"  he,  therefore,  begs  Mr.  Blaine  to 
request  Great  Britain  to  settle  her  differences 
with  Venezuela. 

That,  in  case  of  the  control  of  the  Orinoco 
by  Great  Britain  her  vessels  would  enter  the 
mouth  of  that  river,  and  carry  her  productions, 
her  ideas,  and  her  interests,  cannot  be  doubted. 
But  Great  Britain  has  never  sought  any  ex- 
clusive control  of  the  Orinoco.  She  has  only 
sought  to  have  it  made  free  to  the  commerce 
of  all  nations  ;  and  if  she  were  to  obtain  con- 
trol, she  would  not  claim  or  exercise  any  ex- 
clusive privileges  over  that  river,  any  more 
than  she  claims  and  exercises  exclusive  privi- 
leges over  the  St.  Lawrence,  the  Nile,  the 
Ganges,  the  Indus,  or  the  Irrawaddy,  all  of 
which  she  territorially  controls  ;  or  would  over 
the  Yukon,  if  the  adjustment  of  territorial 
lines  in  Alaska  should  show  the  mouth  of  that 
river  to  be  within  English  jurisdiction. 

On    the    other   hand,    the   letter   of  Senor 


The  United  Slates  a7id  Great  Britain,     5  7 

Paraza  warrants  the  assumption  that  Vene- 
zuela does  not  want  the  Orinoco  to  be  free, 
but  exclusive  to  herself  for  the  purpose  of 
gain  through  some  form  of  money  exaction  on 
the  commerce  that  desires  to  use  it,  and  has 
the  expectation  that  this  privilege  of  exclusive 
control  will  at  no  distant  day  be  accorded  to 
her,  mainly  through  the  agency  of  the  United 
States.  In  1866,  when  she  announced  her  in- 
tention of  erecting  a  lighthouse  on  Point 
Barima,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  the 
British  Government  agreed  to  consent  on  con- 
dition that  this  measure  should  not  be  con- 
sidered as  prejudicing  any  claim  on  its  part  to 
any  territory  thus  occupied  which  was  in  dis- 
pute. The  Venezuelan  Government,  however, 
rejected  the  proposition,  and  the  lighthouse 
in  consequence  has  never  been  built ;  thus 
showing  that  the  motive  of  Venezuela  in  pro- 
posing to  build  a  lighthouse  was  not  with  a 
view  of  compassing  the  object  for  which  such 
structures  are  erected,  namely,  to  benefit 
commerce  and  insure  safe  navigation,  but 
rather  to  fortify  their  claims  to  an  exclusive 
control  of  the  river  for  their  own  advantage. 
In  futherance  of  this  purpose  she  has  also 
chartered   a  purely  speculative  company — an 


58      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

American  syndicate — looking  to  a  monopoly 
of  the  river  and  its  adjacent  territory,  and  of 
which  the  President  of  the  country  is  reported 
as  one  of  the  largest  stockholders.  This 
charter  involved  a  grant  of  14,400,000  acres, 
or  23,000  square  miles — a  territory  about  as 
large  as  New  England, — and,  according  to  a 
statement  made  in  November,  1895,  by  the 
secretary  of  General  Blanco,  late  President  of 
Venezuela,  to  the  New  York  Sun,  and  pub- 
lished in  its  columns,  *'was  in  its  inception  a 
deliberate  purpose  of  Gen.  Blanco's  to  enlist 
more  warmly  the  United  States  in  Venezuela's 
behalf  by  establishing  in  American  citizens  the 
title  to  a  large  part  of  the  territory  claimed  by 
England." 

The  real  and  only  issue  of  importance  in 
this  problem  of  Venezuela  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States  is,  will  they  co-operate  with  the 
British  Government  in  securing  to  all  nations 
the  perpetual  right  to  the  free  commercial  use 
of  this  mighty  river,  which  constitutes  the  only 
available  access  to  the  great  northern  interior 
of  South  America ;  or  allow  its  control  to  pass 
to  a  Government  which  is  one  of  the  most  un- 
stable of  all  countries,  whose  commerce  is 
little  more  than  barter,  which  has  no  banking 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain,      59 

system,  and  whose  history  is  one  monotonous 
record  of  revolutions  accomplished  through 
bloodshed,  and  a  remarkable  ferocity  on  the 
part  of  all  antagonizing  political  parties. 
Peace,  extended  commercial  relations,  and 
consequent  enlargement  of  markets  for  do- 
mestic industrial  products  are  certainly  not 
likely  to  be  assured  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States  by  any  endorsement  on  the 
part  of  their  Government  of  the  latter  policy. 
It  is  the  old  contest  again  between  barbar- 
ism and  civilization  ;  with  a  marked  tendency 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  favor  bar- 
barism and  its  most  certain  concomitant  of 
war.^ 

'  "  I  have  visited  many  British  colonies  in  various  parts  of  the 
world,  and  I  have  had  occasion  to  compare  them  with  near-by  Latin- 
American  republics,  the  successors  of  three  hundred  years  of  Spanish 
rule,  and  I  can  endorse  all  that  Mr.  Wells  has  to  say.  In  1892, 
while  in  command  of  the  United  States  steamship  Kearsa7-gL\  I 
ascended  the  identical  river,  the  Orinoco,  which  Mr.  Wells  would 
sec  thrown  open  to  navigation, — going  as  far  as  Ciudad-Bolivar  (for- 
merly Angostura),  240  miles  above  its  mouth, — and  I  do  not  hesitate 
to  state  that  if  that  great  waterway  were  located  in  a  British  posses- 
sion, its  shores,  instead  of  being  as  they  now  are  for  the  greater  part 
of  the  way  a  howling  wilderness,  would  be  lined  with  prosperous 
settlements,  and  the  waters  of  that  mighty  stream  would  be  carrying 
a  hundred  tons  of  shipping  where  they  now  carry  one  ;  that  those 
great  civilizers,  trade  and  commerce,  and  agriculture,  backed  by  law 
and  order,  would  bring  about  in  the  adjacent  territory  a  state  of 
affairs  that  has  never  yet  entered  the  head  of  the  average  Latin- 


6o      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

In  conclusion,  the  general  result  of  England's 
governmental  and  commercial  policy  may  be 
thus  fairly  and  comprehensively  stated. 

Wherever  her  sovereignty  has  gone,  two 
blades  of  grass  have  grown  where  one  grew 
before.  Her  flag,  wherever  It  has  been  ad- 
vanced, has  benefited  the  country  over  which 
It  floats ;  and  has  carried  with  It  civilization, 
the  Christian  religion,  order,  justice,  and 
prosperity. 

England  Is  the  only  one  of  the  great 
countries  of  the  world  In  which  crime  Is  dimin- 
ishing. Recent  reports  of  the  British  Prison 
Commissioners  for  England  and  Wales  show 
a  remarkable  decrease  In  the  prison  popula- 
tion. In  fact  England  has  been  found  to  have 
too  many  prisons,  and  a  not  Inconsiderable 
number  have  been  closed  during  the  last  ten 
years  because  they  were  no  longer  needed. 
The  actual  decline  In  the  number  of  Inmates 
In  the  local  prisons  of  England  and  Wales 
from  1877  to  1892 — a  period  of  fifteen  years — 


American  politician.  If  England  has  grabbed  territory,  she  has 
grabbed  it  to  some  purpose,  and  no  people  or  race,  be  they  civilized 
or  savage,  has  come  under  her  rule  but  has  been  raised  in  the  social 
scale,  benefited  and  made  free,  where  formerly  they  were  degraded, 
if  not  in  an  actual  state  of  savagery  or  slavery. " — Capt.  A.  S.  Croivnin- 
shieldy  U,  S.  N.,  North  American  Review^  May,  i8g6. 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     6  r 

was  thirty-seven  per  cent. ;  and  this  relative 
decline  would  have  been  much  greater  if  the 
increase  of  the  general  population  in  the  same 
period  had  been  taken  into  the  account. 

England  has  always  treated  a  conquered 
race  with  justice.  What  under  her  rule  is  the 
law  for  the  white  man  is  the  law  for  his  black, 
red,  and  yellow  brother.  And  here  we  have 
one  explanation  of  the  fact  that  England  alone 
of  the  nations  has  been  successful  in  establish- 
ing and  maintaining  colonies ;  and  of  the  fur- 
ther extraordinary  fact,  with  an  accompanying 
impressiveness  of  thought,  that  a  comparatively 
small  insular  country,  containing  less  than 
40,000,000  inhabitants,  can  successfully  preside 
over  the  destinies  of  about  360,000,000  other 
members  of  the  human  race,  and  exercise  a 
governing  influence  greater  and  vastly  more 
beneficent  than  that  of  Rome  in  the  zenith 
of  her  power. 

What  an  endorsement  of  the  honesty  of 
England  and  its  people  is  involved  in  the  re- 
ported and  probable  fact,  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  makes  that  non-Catholic  country  and  its 
much-abused  bankers  its  fiduciary  guardian  of 
the  fiscal  resources  necessary  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  its  vast  missionary  enterprises    and 


62      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

other  religious  objects,  and  which  experience 
has  shown  cannot  be  intrusted  with  an  equal 
degree  of  confidence  to  any  other  country. 
There  is  authority  for  the  statement  that, 
within  a  comparatively  recent  period,  every 
religious  order  of  the  Catholic  Church  in 
France  has  transferred  all  its  available  means 
to  English  banks,  and  that  letters  of  adminis- 
tration or  probate  have  been  taken  out  in 
London  by  their  representatives.  And  a 
similar  action  and  belief  on  the  part  of  other 
foreign  purse-holders  accounts  undoubtedly  in 
a  large  degree  for  the  low  rate  of  interest  on 
money  capital  in  England  (British  2|  percent. 
Consols  selling  at  112^  in  April,  1896),  and 
the  great  demand  for  her  national  securities. 

A  recent  incident,  illustrative  of  how  Eng- 
land, in  entering  upon  the  occupation  of  bar- 
barous countries,  does  not  content  herself  with 
merely  amelioratory  present  or  immediate  con- 
ditions, but  looks  forward  to  future  industrial 
developments,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  one  of 
the  earliest  acts  of  its  administration  in  Cen- 
tral Africa,  was  to  declare  a  considerable  area 
of  country.  Crown  property,  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  the  rapid  and  complete  extinction 
by  fire,  or  otherwise,  of  the  remains  of  a  mag- 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     63 

nificent  forest  of  a  rare  and  extremely  valuable 
species  of  cedar,  which  it  was  the  common  in- 
tent of  the  world  should  not  be  merely  pre- 
served, but  rather  extended  locally  and  by 
propagation  in  other  countries.  Contrast 
this  policy  and  action  of  England  with  the 
absence  of  all  similar  policy  and  action  on  the 
part  of  the  Federal  and  State  Governments 
of  the  United  States,  whereby  the  famous  red- 
wood forests — the  wonder  and  beauty  of  Cali- 
fornia— are  rapidly  disappearing  ;  and  that  the 
time  is  not  far  distant  when  the  Sierra  Moun- 
tains will  be  swept  bare  of  them,  and  the 
country  "wake  up  to  the  realization  of  the 
vandalism  that  has  robbed  it  of  one  of  its 
great  scenic  charms,"  and  of  a  species  of  wood 
that  has  no  rival  for  certain  architectural  uses. 
While  the  people  of  the  United  States  are 
experiencing  the  humiliation  of  seeing  the  flag 
of  their  mercantile  marine  vanishing  from  the 
ocean,  it  may  not  be  unprofitable  for  them  to 
learn  what  England  has  recently  been  doing 
for  the  preservation  and  welfare  of  her  mer- 
chant vessels  and  seamen.  In  virtue  of  what 
has  been  termed  load-lirte  legislation,  adopted 
by  the  United  Kingdom  about  1881,  no  ship 
can  leave  a  British  port  overladen  ;  and  the 


64      The  United  States  and  Gi'eat  Britain, 

owners  of  British  ships  coming  in  overladen, 
as  determined  by  certain  fixed  rules,  are  sub- 
ject to  prosecution.  The  effect  of  this  en- 
actment, accompanied  by  certain  regulations 
respecting  deck-loading  and  the  stowage  of 
grain  cargoes,  has  been  truly  remarkable. 
Thus,  in  1881,  when  the  legislation  referred 
to  began  to  operate,  the  annual  loss  of  life  in 
the  British  mercantile  marine  was  one  in  570 
In  1883  it  had  fallen  to  one  in  66,  in  1885  to 
one  in  96,  and  in  1891  to  one  in  115.  The 
loss  of  life  in  the  ten  years  indicated  had 
therefore  fallen  by  one-half.  The  number  of 
lives  lost  in  1881  was  2352.  In  1892  the 
number  had  fallen  to  107 1.  In  respect  to  the 
effect  of  the  regulations  for  the  stowage  of 
grain,  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  in  the 
three  years  from  1875  ^^  1877,  60  vessels  with 
grain  cargoes  foundered,  and  586  lives  were 
lost.  In  the  three  years  from  1890  to  1892, 
the  number  of  grain  vessels  lost  was  reduced 
to  13,  and  the  number  of  lives  lost  to  230,  a 
very  large  reduction.  In  the  same  way,  in 
respect  to  the  deck-loading  of  timber  ships, 
the  number  of  lives  lost  in  the  three  years 
from  1875  to  1877,  was  135,  whereas  in  the 
three  years  from  1890  to  1892,  the  number  was 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     65 

only  44.  Very  naturally,  seafaring  men  incline 
to  serve  in  the  British  mercantile  marine  rather 
than  in  that  of  any  other  nation.  The  repre- 
sentatives of  the  American  people  in  Congress 
assembled  do  not  seem  to  have  cared  for  any 
such  things,  but  have  recently  rejoiced  greatly 
in  the  expenditure  of  large  sums  of  money, 
raised  by  taxation,  for  the  construction  of  a 
type  of  vessels  which,  by  reason  of  their 
special  adaptations,  have  been  termed  '*  com- 
merce destroyers." 

Again,  under  the  policy  which  England  has 
established  for  the  working  of  her  mines,  and 
which  no  other  government  has  fully  adopted, 
the  occupation  of  the  British  miner  has  been 
rendered  twice  as  safe  as  it  was  at  the  com- 
mencement of  her  mining  enactments. 

But  here  some  may  ask  :  How  about  the 
wrongs  and  abuses  of  Ireland  and  her  people 
on  the  part  of  England?  The  answer  is,  that 
they  originated  in  an  old-time  theory,  once 
accepted  and  practised  by  all  nations,  that 
might  makes  right,  and  that  differences  in 
religious  belief  warrant  individual  persecution 
and  a  debarment  from  all  participation  in  gov- 
ernment, and  it  is  this  policy  that  has,  from  a 
lengthened    period,    entailed   a   condition    of 


66      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

affairs  in  Ireland  that  has  not  been  easy  to 
remedy.  But  England  now  leads  the  way 
among  the  nations  in  the  utter  repudiation  of 
this  policy,  and  the  day  cannot  be  far  distant 
when  the  grievances  of  Ireland  will  be  amicably 
and  satisfactorily  settled  by  her.  That  real 
progress  has  also  been  made  in  this  direction 
is  proved  by  the  fact,  that  the  present  Lord 
Chief  Justice  of  England  (Lord  Russell  of 
Killowen)  is  a  Catholic  Irishman  ;  and  that 
no  subject  of  England  in  Ireland,  or  in  any 
other  country  under  English  sovereignty,  is 
now  debarred  from  participating  in  her  gov- 
ernment by  reason  of  his  religious  belief ; 
which  is  more  than  can  be  affirmed  of  the 
condition  of  affairs  in  some  other  countries 
claiming  to  be  free,  christianized,  and  civil- 
ized. 

England,  furthermore,  no  longer  maintains, 
as  formerly,  an  established  church  in  Ireland. 
Forty  years  ago  a  young  Catholic  Irishman, 
by  reason  of  the  religion  in  which  he  was  born 
and  bred,  was  denied  admission  as  an  under- 
graduate to  the  most  liberal  of  England's 
great  universities — Cambridge.  To-day,  with- 
out swerving  in  any  degree  from  his  former 
religious  belief,  he  fills,  as  Lord  Acton,  one  of 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.     67 

its  most  important  professorships — that  of 
Modern  History  ;  and  his  appointment  has 
been  received  with  universal  satisfaction. 
"Could  there  be  a  more  signal  token  of  the 
passing  away  in  England  of  that  old  sectarian 
spirit,  which  formerly  found  expression  in  re- 
ligious tests;  and  of  the  present  nationaliza- 
tion of  her  great  seats  of  learning  ! " 

If  the  Englishman  is  unbending  and  de- 
termined to  have  his  way,  such  characteristics 
are  due  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  element  in  him  ; 
and  which  as  participated  in  by  the  people  of 
the  United  States  has  been  the  main  cause  of 
their  development  and  prosperity  as  a  nation. 

The  reason  why  England  is  hated  by  other 
nations  is  because  she  is  feared,  and  she  is 
feared  mainly  by  reason  of  the  success  of  her 
commercial  policy,  which  has  not  only  brought 
her  wealth,  but  strength.  She  is  envied,  too, 
by  unsuccessful  rivals  in  common  industrial 
fields.  But  the  United  States  as  a  nation  is 
hated  and  distrusted  in  an  equal  degree.  There 
is  not  a  Government  on  the  American  conti- 
nent, except  Canada  and  Venezuela,  that  does 
not  both  fear  and  hate  her  ;  and  if  the  United 
States  decides  in  favor  of  the  free  navigation 
of  the  Orinoco,  the  latter  will  speedily  be  ac- 


68      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

counted  among  her  most  bitter  enemies.  All 
countries  save  England,  and  possibly  Russia 
and  Japan,  would  rejoice  at  the  dissolution  of 
the  Federal  Union.* 

The  United  States  now  stands  at  the  parting 
of  the  ways.  Shall  she  by  antagonism  with 
England  bring  about  for  herself  a  national 
isolation,  with  the  inevitable  result  of  dwarfing 
the  intellectual  and  industrial  energies  of  her 
people  ;  or,  by  strengthening  the  bonds  of 
peace  and  friendship  with  England,  unite  the 
two  foremost  and  most  progressive  nations  of 
the  world  for  the  joint  attainment  of  those 
results  that  constitute  national  greatness  ? 
Through  what  may  be  termed  natural  influ- 
ences, the  bonds  of  interest  between  the 
United  States  and  England  are  already  im- 
measurably greater  than  with  any  other  coun- 
try. England  buys  from  us  just  about  as 
much  as  all  the  rest  of  the  world  ;  and  all  the 
other  countries  of  the  world  do  not  afford, 
and  could  not  afford,  us  such  a  market  as  she 

^  A  recent  issue  of  the  leading  newspaper  in  the  Argentine  Repub- 
lic— the  Buenos  Ayres  Herald — affirms,  that  the  Argentine  people 
"  are  of  a  different  race,  of  different  language,  customs,  and  interests, 
having  no  sympathy  with  American  thought  or  commerce,  and  having 
neither  affection  nor  any  special  friendship  for  Americans,"  and  the 
sentiments  of  the  people  of  Brazil,  as  indicated  by  the  newspapers  of 
that  country,  are  in  full  agreement  with  those  of  the  Argentines. 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.      69 

does  for  our  agricultural  products,  which  must 
long  remain  the  principal  things  we  have  to 
sell  abroad.  The  five  million  people  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  buy  from  the  United 
States  a  much  greater  quantity  of  her  goods 
and  merchandise  ($47,787,501  in  1895)  than 
all  of  the  thirty-six  million  occupying  the 
continent  of  South  America  ($33,248,331  in 
1895).  If  England  had  not  in  a  great  measure 
abandoned  agriculture,  and  turned  to  the 
United  States  for  her  supply  of  food,  who 
could  say  what  would  have  been  the  present 
economic  condition  of  our  people  at  the  West 
and  South,  or  of  the  people  at  our  manufac- 
turing and  financial  centres  of  the  North  and 
East,  who  are  dependent  upon  the  prosperity 
of  the  West  and  South.  In  short,  the  existing 
ties  of  race,  language,  law,  and  religion,  that 
bind  the  two  nations  together,  are  so  strong, 
that  together  they  must  rise  or  fall.  United, 
as  It  would  seem  to  be  God's  purpose  that  they 
should  be,  there  would  be  little  need  for  either 
to  maintain  large  armies  or  navies,  for  without 
them  they  could  for  all  reasonable  purposes 
rule  the  world,  and  be  Impregnable  against  as- 
sault. If  It  were  also  certain,  as  It  probably  is, 
that  England  would  continue  her  present  com- 


70     The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

mercial  policy,  It  would  be  for  the  true  inter- 
ests of  the  United  States  that  she  "  should 
further  extend  her  sovereignty  over  the  surface 
of  the  earth  ;  for  then  the  people  of  the  United 
States  would  have  the  privilege  and  profit  of 
unrestricted  trade  with  all  the  subjects  of  Eng- 
land without  the  expense  of  governing  them. 

Some  years  since  In  a  social  conversation 
with  one  of  the  ablest  men  that  England  ever 
sent  to  represent  her  diplomatically  at  Wash- 
ington, the  question  was  put  to  him,  "  Do  you 
think  that  war  between  the  United  States  and 
England  is  ever  again  likely  to  occur  ?  "  The 
Immediate  answer  was :  '*  Considering  the 
many  ties  and  common  interests  that  unite 
the  two  nations,  such  an  occurrence  does  not 
seem  possible."  Then,  hesitating  for  a  mo- 
ment, he  continued  :  '*  But  when  I  consider 
the  resources,  energy,  and  skill  of  your  people, 
the  thought  sometimes  occurs  to  me,  that  if 
the  United  States  were  to  adopt  the  commer- 
cial policy  of  England  she  might  so  crowd  us 
out  of  the  markets  of  the  world,  on  which  my 
countrymen  so  largely  depend  for  industrial 
employment  and  support,  that  England  might 
have  to  fight  for  her  existence." 

If,  now,  this  adventitious  supposition  on  the 


The  United  States  and  Great  Britain.      71 

part  of  thiswise  English  diplomat  is  warranted, 
it  would  seem  to  be  wisdom  on  the  part  of 
such  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  as 
hate  England  and  desire  to  humiliate  her,  to 
adopt  as  soon  as  possible  her  commercial 
policy. 

It  Is  not  pretended,  as  some  have  inferred 
(London  Chronicle)  from  a  perusal  of  the 
above  article,  as  it  was  originally  published  in 
the  North  American  Review y  that  the  com- 
mercial or  colonial  policy  of  England  has 
been  primarily  designed  for  the  benefit  of 
rival  nations,  or  mankind  in  general.  Any  as- 
sumption that  such  an  idea  was  either  enter- 
tained, or  expressed  by  the  author  has  no 
warrant.  England  is  pre-eminently  a  selfish 
nation,  in  the  same  sense  as  the  govern- 
ments of  all  other  countries  and  people  are, 
or  ought  to  be, — namely,  in  preferring  and 
fostering  the  interests  and  prosperity  of  their 
own  people,  before  any  or  all  others.  But 
there  are  two  kinds  of  selfishness  :  one,  of  the 
old  mediaeval  type,  which  holds  that  whatever 
gain  may  accrue  to  any  one  in  trade  must 
necessarily  be  accompanied  by  a  correspond- 
ing loss  on  the  part   of  some  other  person  or 


72      The  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 

party  ;  and  that  accordingly  in  international 
trade  or  exchanges  it  is  for  the  interest  of  one 
nation  to  impair  as  far  as  possible  the  trade 
and  prosperity  of  its  commercial  competitors. 
The  other  kind  of  selfishness — which  may  be 
termed  enlightened  selfishness  —  holds  that 
the  parties  participating  in  legitimate  trade 
are  mutually  benefited.  The  local  retail  mer- 
chants —  '*  the  grocer,  the  baker,  and  the 
candlestick-maker "  —  perfectly  understand 
and  appreciate  this  latter  principle.  No  one 
of  them  desires  that  his  customers  shall  not  be 
prosperous,  for  he  knows  that,  if  they  are  not, 
his  sales  will  be  contracted,  and  his  collection 
of  indebtedness  will  be  difficult.  Nations, 
however,  have  been  very  slow  in  recognizing 
and  profiting  by  this  experience.  In  fact, 
England  is  the  only  nation  that  has  done  so, 
and  herein  is  the  secret  of  her  wealth  and 
commercial  supremacy ;  and  her  enlightened 
selfishness  will  undoubtedly  prompt  her  to 
continue  this  policy. 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE 

AN  ADDRESS  BEFORE  THE  BROOKLYN  INSTITUTE 
OF  ARTS  AND  SCIENCES 

March  30,  1896 

By  Edward  J.  Phelps 


73 


THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE.^ 

I  HAVE  been  asked  to  address  you  this 
evening  on  the  subject  of  the  "  Monroe 
doctrine."  This  phrase,  heard  by  many  Ameri- 
cans for  the  first  time,  and  conveying  to 
most  minds  a  very  indefinite  idea,  has  been 
brought  before  the  country  with  striking  effect 
within  the  last  three  or  four  months.  It  has 
drawn  us  dangerously  near  to  a  war  with  Great 
Britain,  and  nearer  perhaps  to  a  war  with  Spain. 
It  has  caused  a  paralysis  upon  business  and  a 
loss  of  property  in  the  depreciation  of  securi- 
ties that  no  arithmetic  can  estimate.  For  what 
cause  ?  Upon  what  provocation  ?  With  the 
countries  concerned  we  are  perfectly  friendly  ; 
we  have  received  no  injury  from  them  and 
have  none  to  fear  ;  with  their  people  we 
have  no  quarrel.  With  one  of  them  we  are 
more  closely  allied  by  every  tie  that  can  pos- 
sibly exist  between  nations,  than  any  indepen- 
dent countries  ever  were  in  the  history  of  the 
world.       Suddenly,    without    warning  or  pre- 

75 


76  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

monition,  this  condition  of  affairs  and  its 
happy  presage  for  the  future  were  threatened 
with  violent  disturbance.  Twenty-four  hours 
before  the  announcement,  not  a  man  in  either 
country,  outside  of  the  American  Executive 
Chamber,  could  have  dreamed  of  such  a  rup- 
ture, on  any  score  then  existing,  or  capable  of 
being  anticipated.  But  by  a  message  of  the 
President  to  Congress  it  was  made  known  to  us 
that  an  ancient  boundary-line  controversy  of 
small  importance,  between  Great  Britain  and 
Venezuela,  which  had  been  dragging  along 
without  conclusion  or  much  attempt  at  it  for 
the  best  part  of  the  present  century,  had  been 
taken  in  hand  by  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment ;  that  its  proposal  to  the  British  Govern- 
ment that  an  arbitration  should  take  place 
between  that  country  and  Venezuela  to  deter- 
mine the  question,  had  been  assented  to  in 
part,  but  in  part  declined  for  special  reasons, 
courteously  stated  ;  and  that  thereupon,  with- 
out further  discussion,  the  President  had  de- 
cided to  ascertain  the  line  by  an  ex  parte 
commission  of  his  own  appointment,  and  to 
compel  Great  Britain  to  accept  the  result.  It 
was  not  pointed  out,  nor  was  it  true,  that  the 
United  States  had  the  slightest  interest,  pres- 


Tki^  Monroe  Doctrine,  yy 

ent  or  future,  in  the  settlement  of  the  ques- 
tion, or  any  special  alliance  or  connection 
with  Venezuela.  Nor  was  it  claimed  (if  that 
could  have  made  any  difference)  that  Great 
Britain  had  taken  a  step  or  uttered  a  word 
which  showed  a  disposition  to  encroach  upon 
the  rights  of  Venezuela,  or  to  bring  any  force 
to  bear  upon  her  in  the  adjustment  of  the  dis- 
pute. Neither  was  it  made  to  appear,  even, 
that  she  was  in  the  wrong  in  her  contention 
as  to  the  true  location  of  the  line,  since  that 
question  was  admitted  to  be  involved  in  such 
obscurity  that  a  learned  commission  of  jurists 
and  scholars  was  necessary  to  discover  by 
laborious  investigation  whether  she  was  right 
or  not,  and  if  not,  wherein  she  was  wrong,  an 
inquiry  upon  which,  after  several  months'  labor, 
they  are  still  at  work.  It  was  simply  assumed, 
that  because  the  boundary  in  dispute  was  on 
this  hemisphere,  the  United  States  had  the 
right  to  dictate  arbitration  between  the  parties 
as  the  proper  method  of  ascertaining  its  loca- 
tion, and  if  that  was  refused,  to  define  the 
line  for  herself,  and  to  enforce  its  adoption. 
This  extraordinary  conclusion  was  asserted  for 
the  first  time  against  a  friendly  nation,  not  as 
a  proposition  open  to  discussion,  to  which  its 


yS  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

attention  and  reply  were  invited,  but  as  an  ulti- 
matum  announced  to  begin  with.  And  it  was 
addressed,  not  to  that  nation  itself,  through  the 
ordinary  channels  of  diplomatic  intercourse, 
but  to  a  coordinate  branch  of  our  own  Govern- 
ment, and  thence  through  the  newspapers  to 
the  world  at  large.  Coming  from  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  in  a  state  paper  of  the 
highest  importance,  and  from  a  President  who 
has  hitherto  commanded  in  an  unusual  degree 
the  public  confidence,  this  conclusion  may  be 
usefully  considered,  since  it  applies  not  only  to 
the  case  which  gave  rise  to  it,  but  to  the  other 
and  similar  cases  which  in  the  shifting  con- 
dition of  South  American  affairs  are  likely  fre- 
quently to  confront  us  in  the  future. 

The  general  rule  of  international  law  which 
precludes  intervention  by  a  nation  in  the 
disputes  of  other  nations  with  which  it  is  at 
peace,  and  with  neither  of  which  it  has  any 
treaty  of  defensive  alliance,  is  universally  con- 
ceded, and  stands  upon  the  most  obvious 
grounds  of  necessity.  Without  it  the  peace 
of  the  world  would  be  constantly  in  danger. 
When  such  a  dispute  has  culminated  in  hos- 
tilities, the  intervention  of  a  third  power  against 
either  party  is  an  act  of  war.     To  this  rule 


The  Monroe  Doctrine,  79 

there  are  but  two  exceptions.  Where  the 
interference  is  for  the  purpose  of  repressing 
^ross  outrages  against  humanity,  like  massacre 
or  intolerable  cruelty,  such  as  are  reported  to 
have  taken  place  in  Armenia,  or  where  the 
nation  interposing  is  compelled  to  do  so  for  its 
own  protection,  in  order  to  prevent  a  disposi- 
tion of  territory  seriously  injurious  to  its  per- 
manent interests,  or  which  would  constitute  a 
grave  menace  to  them  in  the  future.  In  this 
case,  as  has  been  already  remarked,  the  United 
States  has  no  such  apprehension.  No  advo- 
cate of  the  President's  proclamation  has  under- 
taken to  point  out  how  it  can  affect  us, 
whether  the  line  through  the  jungle  of  bushes 
and  water,  which  makes  up  most  of  the  terri- 
tory really  in  dispute,  is  drawn  a  few  miles  one 
way  or  the  other.  And  if  we  could  conceive 
that  we  have  any  possible  interest  in  the 
question,  it  would  be  on  the  side  of  Great 
Britain.  So  far  as  that  region  is  capable  of 
civilized  occupation,  it  would  be  better  for  us 
and  for  the  rest  of  the  world  that  it  should  be 
under  British  jurisdiction,  than  in  the  hands  of 
a  weak  and  unstable  government,  which  is  lit- 
tle more  than  a  succession  of  spasmodic  and 
ill-regulated   republics    diversified   by   revolu- 


8o  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

tion.  Great  Britain  has  no  port  on  any  sea 
that  is  not  wide  open  to  us  without  restriction 
for  every  purpose  of  commerce,  intercourse,  or 
residence  ;  nor  any  country  under  her  flag 
where  the  rights  of  all  Americans  who  may 
find  their  way  there  upon  whatever  errand,  are 
not  as  completely  protected  as  those  of  Eng- 
lishmen. We  load  her  exports  to  us  with 
heavy  duties,  but  she  imposes  none  upon  ours 
in  return.  On  the  other  hand.  United  States 
interests  in  South  American  countries  have 
been  frequently  subject  to  embarrassment  and 
injustice,  requiring  the  interposition  of  our 
Government.  That  we  are  not  claimed  to 
have  any  concern  in  the  location  of  the  dis- 
puted boundary,  is  conclusively  shown  by  the 
willingness  of  the  Administration  to  have  it 
settled  by  an  arbitration  which  we  have  no 
hand  in  appointing,  to  which  we  are  not  a 
party,  before  which  we  are  not  heard,  and 
which  is  charged  with  no  consideration  of  any 
rights  of  ours.  We  profess,  in  short,  no  other 
interest  in  the  matter  than  that  it  should  .be 
determined  one  way  or  the  other,  whether  right 
or  wrong,  by  arbitration.  Such  being  the  con- 
ditions of  the  case,  and  they  are  not  open  to 
dispute,  upon  what  theory  is  the  position  of 


The  Monroe  Doctrine,  8 1 

the  United  States  sought  to  be  justified  ? 
The  answer  offered  to  an  astonished  world  is, 
that  it  is  the  necessary  result  of  the  Monroe 
doctrine,  and  is  to  be  charged  to  that  account. 
Now  a  proposition  that  entails  such  conse- 
quences ought  to  be  pretty  carefully  examined. 
It  behooves  us  to  ascertain  what  it  stands  for, 
what  it  means,  how  far  it  is  sound,  how  far  it  is 
going,  and  what  are  its  limits  if  it  has  any. 

What  then  is  the  "  Monroe  doctrine  ?  "  The 
phrase  is  of  frequent  use  lately,  but  of  very  in- 
frequent attempts  at  definition.  Expressing 
nothing,  it  may  be  understood  to  express  any- 
thing. It  is  generally  supposed  to  embody  a 
vague  idea  of  some  sort  of  control  that  may  be 
or  ought  to  be  exerted  by  the  United  States 
over  the  relations  between  European  govern- 
ments and  those  of  South  America.  But  what 
control,  under  what  right,  for  what  purposes, 
and  in  what  cases,  we  are  not  informed.  The 
name  by  which  such  principle  as  it  is  thought  to 
stand  for  is  called,  would  be  immaterial,  if  it 
were  not  that  a  name  often  gives  currency  to 
an  idea  that  can  only  exist  under  an  indefinable 
phrase,  because  as  soon  as  it  is  stated  in  plain 
language  it  refutes  itself.  It  is  the  constant 
and  necessary  resort  of  those  who  undertake 


82  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

to  maintain  an  unmaintainable  proposition,  to 
find  a  phraseology  that  will  be  accepted  as  con- 
veying its  meaning,  without  exposing  its  fu- 
tility. When  such  terms  are  correctly  defined, 
their  contents  disappear.  The  uncertainty  of 
what  is  meant  by  the  Monroe  doctrine  is 
made  apparent  by  the  efforts  of  recent  writers 
and  orators  to  define  it,  for  no  two  of  them 
agree.  Some  have  gone  so  far  that  the 
ground  taken  by  the  President  has  become 
moderate  in  comparison.  One  asserts  that 
it  is  the  right  in  our  Government  to  forbid 
any  dispute  as  to  a  boundary  line  or  other 
question  between  a  European  and  a  South 
American  government,  however  immaterial  to 
us,  to  be  settled  in  any  way  by  the  parties  to 
it,  without  our  consent.  Another  still  more 
advanced  writer  defines  it  to  be  our  right,  and 
corresponding  duty,  to  require  that  every  dif- 
ference that  arises  between  a  European  na- 
tion and  one  in  South  America,  shall  be  adjusted 
by  arbitration  ;  a  species  of  voluntary  agree- 
ment that  he  conceives  we  have  a  divine  mis- 
sion to  compel  other  governments  to  accept 
against  their  will,  in  matters  with  which  we 
have  no  concern.  Various  other  novel  incur- 
sions Into  the  field  of  international  law  find 


The  Monroe  Doctrine,  ^^2) 

their  only  defence  against  absurdity,  under  the 
convenient  shelter  of  the  phrase  ''  the  Monroe 
doctrine,"  which  is  assumed  to  be  a  feature 
of  the  American  theory  of  government,  in- 
herited by  some  strange  canon  of  descent  from 
President  Monroe,  its  inventor,  and  which  we 
are  all  bound  to  support  whether  we  under- 
stand it  or  not.  And  when  finally  we  resort 
to  the  diplomatic  communications  from  our 
Government  to  that  of  Great  Britain,  in  order 
to  ascertain  if  possible  what  Is  the  precise  right 
we  claim  in  the  present  case,  and  why  we 
claim  It,  we  find  the  answer  to  those  reason- 
able inquiries  to  be  farther  off  than  ever. 

The  pretext  for  annexing  the  name  of  Mr. 
Monroe  to  these  extravagant  proposals  is 
found  in  some  language  employed  In  his  mes- 
sage to  Congress  in  the  year  1823.  He  said 
"The  occasion  has  been  judged  proper  for 
asserting  a  principle  in  which  the  rights  and 
interests  of  the  United  States  are  involved, 
that  the  American  continents,  by  the  free  and 
independent  condition  which  they  have  as- 
sumed and  maintained,  are  henceforth  not  to 
be  considered  as  subjects  for  iuture  coloniza-/ 
tion  by  any  European  power."]  Later  in  the 
same  message  he  said  :  "  We  owe  It  therefore 


84  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

to  candor,  and  to  the  amicable  relations  exist- 
ing between  the  United  States  and  those " 
(Allied)  ''  powers,  to  declare  that  we  should 
consider  any  attempt  on  their  part  to  extend 
their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere 
as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety."  And 
again  :  '*  We  could  not  view  any  interposition 
for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them  "  [the  inde- 
pendent South  American  countries],  "■  or  con- 
trolling in  any  other  manner  their  destiny  by 
any  European  power,  in  any  other  light  than  as 
the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition 
toward  the  United  States."  This  is  what  Mr. 
Monroe  said,  and  substantially  all  that  he  said 
on  the  subject.  The  occasion  which  called 
forth  this  language,  and  the  matter  it  referred 
to,  was  an  intention  shown  by  certain  Euro- 
pean nations  combined  under  what  was  called 
the  Holy  Alliance,  to  aid  Spain  in  regaining 
her  lost  authority  over  eight  provinces  in 
South  America,  which  had  achieved  their  in- 
dependence and  established  republican  insti- 
tutions.. This  was  in  the  infancy  of  our  own 
Republic,  when  that  form  of  government  was 
almost  unknown,  and  was  still  an  untried 
experiment.  It  might  well  be  contended,  that 
to  re-establish  a  European  monarchy  by  force 


The  Monroe  Doctrine,  85 

over  so  large  a  portion  of  South  America, 
against  the  will  of  its  people,  would  have 
been  at  that  time  a  serious  menace  to  our 
political  system,  against  which,  on  well  settled 
principles,  we  were  justified  in  protecting  our- 
selves. And  this  position  was  heartily  con- 
curred In  by  Great  Britain.  In  respect  to  the 
right  of  colonization  on  this  hemisphere  by 
European  countries,  more  doubt  might  arise 
as  to  the  soundness  of  President  Monroe's 
proposition.  It  has  been  opposed  by  emi- 
nent statesmen  and  writers,  and  rejected  by 
Congress  in  former  days.  Unless  there  was 
something  In  the  locality  of  the  proposed 
colonization  that  made  It  a  menace  to  us,  it 
might  be  difficult  to  sustain  the  objection  to  it. 
But  that  point  need  not  here  be  discussed, 
since  It  is  altogether  foreign  to  the  present 
subject,  nor  Is  it  at  all  likely  at  this  day  that 
the  question  will  ever  recur. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  President 
Monroe  never  asserted,  nor  did  the  case  he  was 
dealing  with  call  for  the  assertion  of  any  right 
in  this  Government  that  supports  or  even  ap- 
proaches the  proposition  now  brought  forward 
under  the  professed  sanction  of  his  name. 
What  he  did  say  related  to  an  entirely  differ- 


86  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

ent  state  of  facts  from  those  now  before  us, 
and  referred  to  a  principle  long  fundamental  in 
international  law  and  universally  admitted,  of 
which  he  was  in  no  sense  the  author  ;  the  right 
of  7iational  self-preservation  and  defence  i7i 
every  case  and  under  all  circumstances  that 
call  for  its  exercise.  That  is  not  only  the 
right,  but  the  first  and  paramount  duty  of 
every  independent  nation.  And  it  applies  as 
fully  to  the  acquisition  of  territory  by  another 
power,  when  it  seriously  endangers  the  safety 
or  the  important  interests  of  a  country,  as  to 
any  other  aggression.  If  this  unquestionable 
right  is  what  is  meant  by  the  term  ''  Monroe 
doctrine,"  the  phrase  is  capable  of  being  clearly 
understood  and  accurately  defined,  and  it  will 
encounter  no  denial  in  any  quarter.  Such  is  the 
view  of  Mr.  Monroe's  propositions  taken  by 
Mr.  Webster  in  his  celebrated  speech  on  the 
Panama  mission,  in  which  he  warmly  defended 
the  message,  which  had  been  earnestly  attacked. 
He  said  :  "  The  general  rule  of  national  law  is 
unquestionably  against  interference  in  the 
transactions  of  other  states.  There  are,  how- 
ever, acknowledged  exceptions  growing  out 
of  circumstances,  and  founded  in  those  cir- 
cumstances.    .     .     .     The    ground    of    these 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  87 

exceptions  is,  as  I  have  already  stated,  self- 
preservation.  It  is  not  a  slight  injury  to  our 
interests,  it  is  not  even  a  great  inconvenience, 
that  makes  out  a  case.  There  must  be  danger 
to  our  security,  or  danger,  manifest  and  immi- 
nent danger,  to  our  essential  rights  and  our 
essential  interests.  .  .  .  Our  right  to  in- 
terfere in  any  such  case  is  but  the  exercise  of 
the  right  of  reasonable  and  necessary  self-de- 
fence. It  is  a  high  and  delicate  exercise  of 
that  right ;  one  not  to  be  made  but  on  grounds 
of  strong  and  manifest  reason,  justice,  and 
necessity." 

The  limits  of  this  occasion  do  not  admit  of 
sustaining  Mr.  Webster's  views  by  adducing 
those  of  other  statesmen  and  writers  to  the  same 
effect.  Nor  is  it  necessary.  The  propriety  of 
the  proposition  he  has  so  lucidly  stated  is  al- 
most self-evident,  and  has  never  been  denied 
by  any  recognized  authority.  Nor  can  there 
be  a  higher  or  more  truly  American  authority 
than  his  on  any  question  of  international  right 
on  which  he  ever  had  occasion  to  express 
himself. 

The  application  of  the  right  of  national  self- 
defence  to  the  injurious  acquisition  by  other 
nations  of  new  territory,  finds  its  chief  illustra- 


88  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

tion  In  what  is  called  in  Europe  the  balance  of 
power.  'The  right  of  interference  in  such  cases 
by  the  country  thus  menaced,  has  long  been 
established.  But  to  justify  it,  the  necessity  for 
it  must  first  clearly  appea^  It  is  not  in  ordi- 
nary cases,  nor  at  the  mere  will  or  caprice  of  the 
nation  intervening,  nor  upon  any  theory  of  a 
constructive,  a  possible,  or  an  unimportant  in- 
jury, that  it  has  been  permitted  by  that  general 
concurrence  of  mankind  which  constitutes  in- 
ternational law.  When  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  war  between  Germany  and  France  the  for- 
mer annexed  to  itself  the  provinces  of  Alsace 
and  Lorraine,  no  other  country  could  have 
justified  an  interference  to  prevent  it,  since  it 
wrought  no  other  country  any  injury.  But  had 
Germany  undertaken  to  annex  France  by  con- 
quest, the  right  of  European  nations  to  protest, 
by  force  of  arms,  if  necessary,  would  not  have 
been  open  to  question.  The  absorption  of 
Turkey  by  Russia  would  be  prevented  by  the 
nations  whose  grave  interests  would  be  men- 
aced by  it.  But  the  adjustment  between  Russia 
and  Turkey  of  the  obscure  boundary  of  an  in- 
significant province,  in  no  way  affecting  the 
outside  world,  would  not  warrant  intervention. 
When  the  United  States  purchased  the  prov- 


The  Monroe  Doctrine,  89 

ince  of  Alaska  from  Russia,  would  Great 
Britain,  though  proprietor  of  so  vast  a  terri- 
tory in  that  part  of  the  continent,  have  been 
justified  in  undertaking  to  prevent  it  ?  How 
would  such  an  attempt  have  been  received  by 
the  American  people  ?  On  the  other  hand,  it 
is  easy  enough  to  conceive  of  new  acquisitions 
by  foreign  powers  in  South  American  countries, 
that  would  create  a  menace  to  our  interests  so 
serious  as  to  authorize  and  require  our  resist- 
ance. Such  was  the  attempt  on  the  part  of 
France  to  establish  a  monarchy  in  Mexico, 
against  which  our  Government  successfully  in- 
terposed. Such  would  be  an  effort  by  a  Euro- 
pean power  to  obtain  control  of  Nicaragua, 
destined  to  be  the  gate  through  which  a  great 
commerce  will  pass,  and  which  our  plainest  in- 
terests require  should  be  under  our  own  con- 
trol, or,  at  the  least,  that  its  neutrality  and 
freedom  should  be  completely  guaranteed.  Il- 
lustrations might  be  multiplied,  were  it  requi- 
site or  useful.  The  distinction  is  apparent, 
between  the  right  to  intervene  between  other 
nations  where  it  is  reasonably  necessary  to  our 
own  protection,  and  the  unfounded  claim  of 
such  a  right  where  it  is  in  no  sense  necessary. 
In  the  former  case  the  quarrel  in  which  we 


90  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

interpose  is  no  longer  that  of  the  first  parties 
to  it,  only,  for  it  has  become  our  own.  The 
difference  is  the  justification  on  which  all 
self-defence  depends,  whether  national  or  indi- 
vidual,— the  necessity  for  its  exercise.  The 
right  goes  always  as  far  as  the  necessity,  and 
never  goes  any  farther.  He  who  invokes  it 
must  justify  it  by  showing  that  it  was  necessary. 

Now,  till  some  man  can  stand  forth  and 
inform  us  how  we  are  to  be  injured  by  the 
adjustment  of  that  Venezuelan  boundary  line, 
I  shall  venture  respectfully  to  assert  that  it  is 
a  controversy  we  have  no  right  to  meddle 
with. 

But  some  of  the  advocates  of  the  new 
**  Monroe  doctrine,"  who  feel  compelled  to 
admit  that  it  cannot  be  maintained  as  a  right, 
attempt  to  uphold  it  as  being  what  they  call 
''  American  policy." 

This  ground  is,  if  possible,  still  weaker.  If 
we  have  no  right  to  intervene  in  a  case  where 
we  have  no  interest  or  concern,  then  such  an 
intervention  would  be  a  grave  infraction  of  the 
rights  of  the  nation  interfered  with.  Rights 
are  correlative  and  reciprocal,  and  where  we 
interfere  without  right,  we  do  so  against  the 
rights  we  seek  to  obstruct.     Is  it  to  be  main- 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  91 

tained  that  as  a  government  it  is  our  policy  to 
do  to  other  nations  against  their  will  what  we 
have  no  right  to  do  ?  Where  would  such  a 
policy  stop  ?  And  how  should  we  relish  it 
when  applied  to  ourselves  ?  That  it  is  the  true 
policy  of  a  nation  always  to  assert  its  own 
rights  is  clear,  but  can  it  ever  be  its  policy  to 
assail  the  rights  of  others  ?  Again,  policy 
means  interest.  We  can  have  no  policy,  right 
or  wrong,  where  we  have  no  interest.  The 
terms  are  synonymous.  What  sort  of  a  policy 
is  it,  then,  which  invades  the  rights  of  other 
nations  where  we  have  nothing  to  gain  by  it  ? 
W^e  may  have,  it  is  true,  an  interest  in  attaining 
by  just  means  that  which  we  have  no  right  to 
demand.  That  may  be  the  case  among  nations 
as  well  as  among  individuals.  But  such  a  policy 
must  be  w^orked  out  by  those  peaceable  methods 
through  which  in  the  business  of  this  world 
desirable  ends  are  reached  and  advantages 
acquired  which  cannot  be  taken  by  force.  If, 
therefore,  we  could  even  see  that  we  have  in 
this  case  any  interest  to  be  attained  that  is  not 
a  right  to  be  enforced,  it  would  afford  no  justifi- 
cation at  all  for  the  attempt  to  assert  it  in 
defiance  of  the  rights  of  others. 

In  no  view  of  the  case,  then,  can  the  course 


92  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

of  the  Administration  in  this  affair  be  justified. 
It  is  a  plain  infraction  of  those  established 
principles  in  which  all  nations  concur.  They 
have  become  international  law,  because  they 
are  international  right  ;  and  they  are  right  not 
only  because  they  are  just,  but  because  they 
are  indispensable.  International  law  is  inter- 
national morality  and  justice,  formulated  by  the 
general  consent  of  civilized  men.  That  is  its 
basis  and  its  sanction.  The  claim  that  Ameri- 
cans are  in  any  respect  above  or  beyond  this  law 
of  the  civilized  world,Lor  that  we  are  invested 
with  authority  to  interfere  in  the  affairs  of  other 
nations  in  which  we  are  in  no  way  concerned, 
merely  because  the  location  of  the  dispute  is 
in  South  America,  are  propositions  that  will 
find  no  favor  among  just  or  thoughtful  men. 
We  have  no  protectorate  over  South  American 
nations,  and  do  not  assume  any  responsibility 
in  their  behalf.  J  Our  own  rights  there  as  else- 
where, it  is  to  be  hoped,  we  shall  never  fail  to 
maintain.  But  those  rights  have  their  founda- 
tion and  their  limit  in  the  settled  law  to  which 
we  are  subject  as  all  other  nations  are,  and 
which  is  as  necessary  to  us  as  to  them. 

And  when  we  undertake  to  assert  that  we 
are  not  bound  by  that  law,  and  care  nothing 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  93 

for  the  opinion  of  the  world  ;  that  we  are 
Americans  and  monarchs  of  all  we  survey  ; 
and  that  we  are  going  to  control  the  part  of 
this  hemisphere  that  does  not  belong  to  us, 
regardless  of  the  rights  of  those  to  whom  it 
does  belong,  merely  for  the  sake  of  doing  it, 
and  because  we  think  we  are  strong  enough, 
we  adopt  the  language  and  the  conduct  of  the 
bully,  and  shall  certainly  encounter,  if  that  is 
persisted  in,  the  bully's  retribution. 

In  respect  to  the  merits  of  the  boundary 
question  between  Venezuela  and  Great  Britain 
I  say  nothing,  because  I  know  nothing.  Judg- 
ing from  past  history  in  similar  cases,  I  believe 
it  will  turn  out  that  there  is  no  line  there,  and 
never  was,  that  is  capable  of  being  determined. 
It  has  been  the  history  almost  always  of  un- 
occupied regions,  that  their  boundaries  were 
utterly  vague.  No  occasion  to  define  them 
having  arisen,  and  the  world  having  no  use  for 
the  territory  involved,  the  monuments  and 
landmarks  on  paper  that  were  supposed  to 
designate  them  usually  turn  out  either  not 
to  exist,  or  to  be  too  indefinite  and  uncertain 
to  be  ascertained.  By  and  by,  in  the  progress 
of  the  world,  the  tide  of  civilization  overtakes 
such    regions,    they  are    required    for   human 


94  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

occupation,  and  their  resources  are  brought  to 
Hght.  Then  springs  up  the  question  of  the 
boundary,  and  perhaps  violent  disputes  in  re- 
spect to  it,  and  in  due  time  they  have  to  be 
settled  by  a  compromise,  and  by  the  drawing 
of  an  arbitrary  line  that  is  agreed  on  and 
mutually  accepted,  not  as  the  old  supposed 
line  that  cannot  be  found,  but  as  a  new  one  that 
is  established  because  just  and  equitable.  Such 
has  been  the  history  of  our  own  boundary  lines 
as  they  have  gradually  become  important,  in 
Maine,  in  Oregon,  and  elsewhere,  and  by  that 
sort  of  compromise  they  have  been  happily 
established,  after  much  war  talk.  And  such  is 
precisely  the  question  we  have  pending  to-day 
with  Great  Britain,  in  respect  to  the  boundary 
between  Alaska  and  British  Columbia.  By 
the  description  given  in  the  old  treaty  between 
Great  Britian  and  Russia  under  which  we 
claim,  made  long  before  the  foot  of  a  white 
man  had  been  set  upon  that  region,  and  long 
before  any  civilized  occupation  of  it  was  antici- 
pated as  likely  to  occur,  the  boundary  can 
not  be  drawn,  and  the  designation  of  it  is 
impossible  to  be  pursued.  The  two  govern- 
ments are  now  engaged  in  surveys,  not  to 
find   the   line   that   cannot  be  found,   but  to 


The  Monroe  Doctrine,  95 

acquire  materials  for  making  one  that  shall  be 
as  nearly  as  possible  just  and  fair.  That,  I 
venture  to  say,  will  be  the  way  and  the  only 
way  in  which  the  line  between  Great  Britain 
and  Venezuela  can  ever  be  established.  And 
if  we  desired  to  interfere  in  any  controversy 
between  other  nations,  in  which  we  have  no 
interest,  such  a  one  as  that  is  the  very  last  in 
which  we  could  undertake  to  find  out  which 
party  is  in  the  right.  How  should  we  receive 
a  proposal  by  Mexico  to  interfere  (if  that  re- 
public was  strong  enough)  between  us  and 
Great  Britain,  in  respect  to  the  Alaskan  line,  in 
order  to  ascertain  that  line  for  herself  by  an  ex 
parte  commission  of  her  own,  and  then  to 
compel  the  United  States  to  accept  it  ?  Yet 
Mexico  is  as  much  entitled  to  a  '*  Monroe 
doctrine,"  in  respect  to  disputes  arising  on  this 
continent  in  which  she  has  no  concern,  as  we 
are. 

A  few  words  now  In  reference  to  our  rela- 
tions with  Spain,  In  which  what  is  called  the 
"  Monroe  doctrine"  again  comes  to  the  front. 
If  the  general  intelligence  of  the  nation  will 
not  permit  a  groundless  war  with  Great 
Britain,  It  Is  proposed  In  certain  quarters  that 
we  should  fight  Spain,   In   order  to  help  the 


g6  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

rebels  in  Cuba  to  wrest  that  island  from  the  gov- 
ernment to  which  it  belongs.  And,  as  before, 
our  only  reason  is  that  Cuba  is  on  this  side  of 
the  Atlantic.  Cuba  has  been  a  part  of  Spain 
for  a  very  long  time,  the  most  valuable  of  her 
diminished  possessions.  With  Spain  we  are 
on  terms  of  absolute  friendship,  and  always 
have  been.  Spain  !  An  ancient  nation  long 
celebrated  in  history,  once  the  chief  seat  of 
that  fine  learning  which  institutes  like  yours 
are  built  to  foster,  whence  and  under  the 
patronage  of  whose  enlightened  queen,  Co- 
lumbus came  to  open  this  continent  to  our 
ancestors.  And  now  there  has  broken  out  in 
her  province  a  rebellion,  which,  so  far  as  I  can 
learn,  is  a  rebellion  of  banditti  ;  a  rebellion  of 
pillage,  and  arson,  and  murder,  with  no  at- 
tempt at  an  organized  government,  no  capital, 
no  centre,  no  recognized  head.  It  has  nothing 
to  stand  on  but  crime.  And  it  is  proposed 
that  we  shall  attack  Spain  since  she  has  be- 
come less  powerful  than  we  are,  and  set  up 
that  class  of  people  in  the  independent  gov- 
ernment of  Cuba.  Upon  what  ground  is  this 
proposal  justified  ?  Again  it  is  the  **  Monroe 
doctrine." 

Well,  let  us  look  at  that  for  a  moment.    We" 


The  Monroe  Doctrine.  97 

had  a  rebellion  of  our  own  thirty  years  ago,  a 
very  serious  one,  of  four  years'  duration.  It 
was  not  an  insurrection  of  banditti,  robbing 
and  stealing  and  burning.  It  was  the  organi- 
zation of  a  good  many  sovereign  states,  of  a 
large  and  intelligent  people,  with  a  constitu- 
tion, a  government,  a  regular  army,  very  dis- 
tinguished military  and  civil  leaders,  and  all 
that  was  necessary  to  national  independence, 
except  the  right  of  secession.  And  the  exist- 
ence of  that  was  a-  matter  of  opinion.  If  the 
South  had  possessed  that  right,  it  would  have 
deserved  to  succeed,  and  it  w^ould  have  suc- 
ceeded. How  should  we  have  relished  the 
interference  of  Spain,  or  of  any  other  country, 
on  this  hemisphere  or  the  other,  to  assist  that 
rebellion,  on  the  sole  plea  that  the  people  of 
the  Southern  States  claimed  the  right  to  set 
up  a  government  for  themselves?  What  a 
feeling  pervaded  this  country  on  the  mere 
suggestion  that  the  sympathy  of  society  in 
England  was  to  a  greater  or  less  degree 
with  the  Confederate  Government !  Not  that 
the  British  Government  took  a  single  step  to 
interfere  against  us,  but  it  was  asserted,  and 
with  more  or  less  truth,  no  doubt,  that, 
among  a  certain  class  of  English  people  there 


98  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

was  a  feeling  of  sympathy  with  the  South. 
And  when  the  Alabama,  built  in  England, 
slipped  out  from  her  control  to  become  a 
privateer  against  the  commerce  of  the  North- 
ern States,  what  was  the  feeling  in  this  country 
about  that  ?  It  was  never  claimed  that  there 
was  anything  more  than  neglect  on  the  part  of 
the  British  Government.  It  hesitated  a  little 
too  long  over  the  evidence  laid  before  it  as  to 
the  character  of  the  vessel,  and  finally  sent 
down  orders  to  stop  her,  about  twenty-four 
hours  too  late.  And  yet  we  were  almost  ready 
to  go  to  war  with  Great  Britain  over  the  depre- 
dations of  that  ship,  and  but  for  the  Geneva 
arbitration  a  war  might  have  ensued.  What 
do  you  suppose  would  have  occurred  if  Great 
Britain  had  taken  up  arms  to  assist  the  South- 
ern rebellion  ? 

Now  it  is  proposed  that  we  should  do  to 
Spain,  in  her  imminent  distress,  what  in  our 
own  similar  case  we  should  have  justly  resented 
to  the  very  death,  if  it  had  been  done  to  us  by 
any  nation  in  the  world.  Can  anything  be 
added  by  argument  against  such  a  proposal,  to 
the  refutation  which  the  very  statement  of  it 
affords?  Can  it  be  justified  to  the  sense  of 
any  rational  man,  upon  any  ground  that  ever 


The  Monroe  Doctrine,  99 

was  known  ?  Here  again  we  encounter  the 
established  principle  of  international  law  that 
forbids  such  an  interference,  and  makes  it  an 
act  of  war,  as  unjustifiable  as  it  is  unnecessary. 
Now,  my  friends,  there  is  no  American,  I 
trust,  that  ever  would  shrink  one  hair's  breadth 
from  any  war,  let  its  calamities  and  horrors 
and  destruction  be  what  they  may,  let  its  cost 
be  what  it  may,  if  it  should  be  unhappily 
necessary  to  vindicate  our  national  honor,  or 
to  protect  our  national  interest.  When  that 
time  comes,  we  shall  not  be  found  arguing 
about  the  meaning  of  the  Monroe  doctrine, 
nor  shall  we  pause  to  inquire  by  what 
name  we  shall  baptize  a  sentiment  that  will 
be  irrepressible  because  it  will  be  just.  Is  it 
not  best  to  wait  for  that  emergency  ?  Is  it  not 
best  to  maintain  the  peace  which  is  indispen- 
sable to  our  prosperity  and  welfare,  until  it 
becomes  necessary  to  break  it  ?  And  to  refuse 
to  intermeddle  in  the  controversies  that  con- 
stantly succeed  each  other  between  the  differ- 
ent sections  of  mankind,  till  the  time  comes 
when  it  can  be  shown  that  we  have  something 
to  do  with  one  of  them  that  requires  our  inter- 
ference. Is  not  that  the  true  definition  of  the 
Monroe  doctrine,  if  we  choose  to  call  by  a  name 


lOO  The  Monroe  Doctrine, 

that  does  not  belong  to  it,  a  very  early  and 
fundamental  principle  in  the  law  of  nations  ? 
That  is  the  ground,  as  it  seems  to  me,  on 
which  Americans  should  stand,  in  order  to 
preserve  their  own  peace,  and  to  help  preserve 
that  of  the  world.  And  notwithstanding  the 
clamor  of  men  who  want  war  for  war's  sake  ; 
war  for  its  contracts,  and  its  plunder,  and  its 
offices,  and  the  spoil  that  can  be  gathered  out 
of  the  common  calamity ;  war  to  further 
among  the  ignorant  the  chances  of  some  party 
candidate  ;  war  to  drive  the  country  into  the 
curse  and  ruin  of  a  dishonest  currency,  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  have  its  material  to  sell  ; 
or  to  give  a  fictitious  value  to  the  bonds  of 
a  Cuban  government  that  does  not  exist,  and 
would  be  utterly  worthless  if  it  did — that  is 
the  ground  on  which,  as  I  believe,  the  sound 
good  sense  of  the  American  people,  which 
comes  to  the  front  with  irresistible  force  when 
the  occasion  is  great  enough  to  demand  it,  will 
plant  itself,  now  and  always,  for  the  country's 
sake. 


ARBITRATION 
IN   INTERNATIONAL   DISPUTES 

By  Carl  Scuurz 


lOI 


ARBITRATION 
IN  INTERNATIONAL  DISPUTES/ 

By  Carl  Schurz. 

I  HAVE  been  honored  with  the  request  that 
I  should  address  you  on  the  desirableness 
of  arbitration  as  a  method  of  settling  interna- 
tional disputes.  To  show  that  arbitration  is 
preferable  to  war,  should  be  among  civilized 
people  as  superfluous  as  to  show  that  to  refer 
disputes  between  individuals  or  associations  to 
courts  of  justice  is  better  than  to  refer  them  to 
single  combat  or  to  street  fights — In  one  word, 
that  the  ways  of  civilization  are  preferable  to 
those  of  barbarism.  Neither  is  there  any  doubt 
as  to  the  practicability  of  international  arbitra- 
tion. What  seemed  an  idealistic  dream  in 
Hugo  Grotius's  time.  Is  now  largely  an  estab- 
lished practice  ;  no  longer  an  uncertain  experi- 
ment, but  an  acknowledged  success.     In  this 

*  Address  delivered  at  the  Arbitration  Conference  in  Washington 
April  22,  1896. 

103 


1 04  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes. 

century  not  less  than  eighty  controversies  be- 
tween civilized  powers  have  been  composed  by 
arbitration.  And  more  than  that.  Every 
international  dispute  settled  by  arbitration  has 
stayed  settled,  while  during  the  same  period 
some  of  the  results  of  great  wars  have  not 
stayed  settled,  and  others  are  unceasingly 
drawn  in  question,  being  subject  to  the  shift- 
ing preponderance  of  power.  And  such  wars 
have  cost  rivers  of  blood,  countless  treasure, 
and  immeasurable  misery,  while  arbitration 
has  cost  comparatively  nothing.  Thus  history 
teaches  the  indisputable  lesson  that  arbitration 
is  not  only  the  most  humane  and  economical 
method  of  settling  international  differences, 
but  also  the  most,  if  not  the  only,  certain 
method  to  furnish  enduring  results. 

As  to  the  part  war  has  played  and  may  still 
have  to  play  in  the  history  of  mankind,  I  do 
not  judge  as  a  blind  sentimentalist.  I  readily 
admit  that,  by  the  side  of  horrible  devasta- 
tions, barbarous  cruelty,  great  and  beneficent 
things  have  been  accomplished  by  means  of 
war  in  forming  nations  and  in  spreading  and 
establishing  the  rule  or  influence  of  the  capable 
and  progressive.  I  will  not  inquire  how  much 
of  this  work  still  remains  to  be  done  and  what 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes,    105 

place  war  may  have  in  it.  But  surely,  among 
the  civilized  nations  of  to-day — and  these  we 
are  considering — the  existing  conditions  of  in- 
tercourse largely  preclude  war  as  an  agency 
for  salutary  objects.  The  steamship,  the  rail- 
road, the  telegraph,  the  postal  union,  and  other 
international  arrangements  facilitating  trans- 
portation and  the  circulation  of  intelligence 
have  broken  down  many  of  the  barriers  which 
formerly  enabled  nations  to  lead  separate  lives, 
and  have  made  them  in  those  things  which 
constitute  the  agencies  of  well-being  and  of 
progressive  civilization  in  a  very  high  degree 
dependent  upon  each  other.  And  this  devel- 
opment of  common  life-interests  and  mutual 
furtherance,  mental  as  well  as  material,  still 
goes  on  in  continuous  growth.  Thus  a  war 
between  civilized  nations  means  now  a  rupture 
of  arteries  of  common  life-blood,  a  stoppage  of 
the  agencies  of  common  well-being  and  ad- 
vancement, a  waste  of  energies  serviceable  to 
common  interests — in  one  word,  a  general  dis- 
aster, infinitely  more  serious  than  it  did  in 
times  gone  by  ;  and  it  is,  consequently,  now 
an  infinitely  more  heinous  crime  against  hu- 
manity, unless  not  only  the  ends  it  is  to  serve 
fully  justify  the  sacrifices  it  entails,  but  unless 


io6  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes. 

also  all  expedients  suggested  by  the  genius  of 
peace  have  been  exhausted  to  avert  the  armed 
conflict. 

Of  those  pacific  expedients,  when  ordinary 
diplomatic  negotiation  does  not  avail,  arbitra- 
tion has  proved  itself  most  effective.  And  it 
is  the  object  of  the  movement  in  which  we  are 
engaged  to  make  the  resort  to  arbitration,  in 
case  of  international  difficulty,  still  more  easy, 
more  regular,  more  normal,  more  habitual,  and 
thereby  to  render  the  resort  to  war  more  un- 
natural and  more  difficult  than  heretofore. 

In  this  movement  the  Republic  of  the  United 
States  is  the  natural  leader,  and  I  can  conceive 
\/  for  it  no  nobler  or  more  beneficent  mission. 
The  naturalness  of  this  leadership  is  owing  to 
its  peculiar  position  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth.  Look  at  the  powers  of  the  Old  World, 
how  each  of  them  is  uneasily  watching  the 
other ;  how  conflicting  interests  or  ambitions 
are  constantly  exciting  new  anxieties ;  how 
they  are  all  armed  to  the  teeth  and  nervously 
increase  their  armaments,  lest  a  hostile  neigh- 
bor overmatch  them  ;  how  they  are  piling  ex- 
pense upon  expense  and  tax  upon  tax  to 
augment  their  instruments  of  destruction; 
how,    as   has    been    said,    every   workingman 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes,   107 

toiling  for  his  daily  bread  has  to  carry  a  full- 
armed  soldier  or  sailor  on  his  back ;  and  how, 
in  spite  of  those  bristling  armaments,  their 
sleep  is  unceasingly  troubled  by  dreams  of  in- 
terests threatened,  of  marches  stolen  upon 
them,  of  combinations  hatched  against  them, 
and  of  the  danger  of  some  accident  breaking 
the  precarious  peace  and  setting  those  gigantic 
and  exhausting  preparations  in  motion  for  the 
work  of  ravage  and  ruin. 

And  then  look  at  this  Republic,  stronger  than 
any  nation  in  Europe  in  the  number,  Intelli- 
gence, vigor,  and  patriotism  of  its  people,  and 
in  the  unparalleled  abundance  of  its  barely 
broached  resources  ;  resting  with  full  security 
in  its  magnificent  domain  ;  standing  safely  aloof 
from  the  feuds  of  the  Old  World  ;  substan- 
tially unassailable  in  its  great  continental 
stronghold  ;  no  dangerous  neighbors  threaten- 
ing its  borders  ;  no  outlying  and  exposed  posses- 
sions to  make  it  anxious  ;  the  only  great  power 
in  the  world  seeing  no  need  of  keeping  up  vast 
standing  armaments  on  land  or  sea  to  main- 
tain Its  peace  or  to  protect  its  Integrity  ;  Its 
free  Institutions  making  its  people  the  sole 
master  of  its  destinies ;  and  Its  best  political 
traditions  pointing  to  a  general  policy  of  peace 


io8  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes, 

and  good-will  among  men.  What  nation  is 
there  better  fitted  to  be  the  champion  of  this 
cause  of  peace  and  good-will  than  this,  so 
strong  although  unarmed,  and  so  entirely  ex- 
empt from  any  imputation  of  the  motive  of 
fear  or  of  selfish  advantage  ?  Truly,  this 
Republic,  with  its  power  and  its  opportunities, 
is  the  pet  of  destiny. 

As  an  American  citizen,  I  cannot  contem- 
plate this  noble  peace  mission  of  my  country 
without  a  thrill  of  pride.  And,  I  must  confess,- 
it  touches  me  like  an  attack  upon  the  dignity 
of  this  Republic  when  I  hear  Americans  re- 
pudiate that  peace  mission  upon  the  ground  of 
supposed  interests  of  the  United  States  requir- 
ing for  their  protection  or  furtherance  prepara- 
tion for  warlike  action  and  the  incitement  of  a 
fighting  spirit  among  our  people.  To  judge 
from  the  utterances  of  some  men  having  the 
public  ear,  we  are  constantly  threatened  by  the 
evil  designs  of  rival  or  secretly  hostile  powers 
that  are  eagerly  watching  every  chance  to 
humiliate  our  self-esteem,  to  insult  our  flag,  to 
balk  our  policies,  to  harass  our  commerce,  and 
even  to  threaten  our  very  independence,  and 
putting  us  in  imminent  danger  of  discomfiture 
of  all  sorts,  unless  we  stand  with  sword  in 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes.    109 

hand  in  sleepless  watch  and  cover  the  seas 
with  warships  and  picket  the  islands  of  every 
ocean  with  garrisoned  outposts,  and  surround 
ourselves  far  and  near  with  impregnable  for- 
tresses. What  a  poor  idea  those  indulging  in 
such  talk  have  of  the  true  position  of  their 
country  among  the  nations  of  the  world  ! 

A  little  calm  reflection  will  convince  every 
unprejudiced  mind  that  there  is  not  a  single 
power,  nor  even  an  imaginable  combination  of 
powers,  on  the  face  of  the  globe  that  can  wish 
— I  might  almost  say  that  can  afford — a  seri- 
ous quarrel  with  the  United  States.  There 
are  very  simple  reasons  for  this.  A  war  in 
our  days  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  military  skill, 
nor  even — as  it  would  certainly  not  be  in  our 
case — a  mere  matter  of  preparation  for  the 
first  onset.  It  is  a  matter  of  material  resources, 
of  reserves,  of  staying  power.  Now,  consider- 
ing that  in  all  these  respects  our  means  are 
substantially  inexhaustible,  and  that  the  patri- 
otic spirit  and  the  extraordinary  ingenuity  of 
our  people  would  greatly  aid  their  develop- 
ment in  the  progress  of  a  conflict ;  considering 
that,  however  grievous  the  injuries  a  strong 
hostile  navy  might  inflict  upon  us  at  the  be- 
ginning of  a  war,    it  could  not  touch  a  vital 


no  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes, 

point,  as  on  land  we  would  be  immensely 
superior  to  any  army  that  could  be  brought 
upon  our  shores  ;  considering  that  thus  a  war 
with  the  United  States,  as  a  test  of  endurance, 
would,  so  far  as  our  staying  power  is  con- 
cerned, be  a  war  of  indefinite  duration  ;  consid- 
ering all  these  things,  I  am  justified  in  saying 
that  no  European  power  can  engage  in  such  a 
conflict  with  us  without  presenting  to  its  rivals 
in  the  Old  World  the  most  tempting  oppor- 
tunity for  hostile  action.  And  no  European 
power  will  do  this,  unless  forced  by  extreme 
necessity.  For  the  same  reason  no  European 
power  will,  even  if  it  were  so  inclined,  insist 
upon  doing  anything  injurious  to  our  interests 
that  might  lead  to  a  war  with  the  United 
States.  We  may  therefore  depend  upon  it 
with  absolute  assurance  that,  whether  we  are 
armed  or  not,  no  European  power  will  seek  a 
quarrel  with  us  ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  they 
will  avoid  such  a  quarrel  with  the  utmost  care  ; 
that  we  cannot  have  a  war  with  any  of  them, 
unless  we  wantonly  and  persistently  seek  such 
a  war ;  and  that  they  will  respect  our  rights 
and  comply  with  all  our  demands,  if  just  and 
proper,  in  the  way  of  friendly  agreement. 
If  anybody  doubts  this,  let  him  look  at  a 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes,   1 1 1 

recent  occurrence.  The  alarmists  about  the 
hostility  to  us  of  foreign  powers  usually  have 
Great  Britain  in  their  minds.  I  am  very  sure 
President  Cleveland,  when  he  wrote  his  Ven- 
ezuela message,  did  not  mean  to  provoke  a 
war  with  Great  Britain.  But  the  language  of 
that  message  might  have  been  construed  as 
such  a  provocation  by  anybody  inclined  to  do 
so.  Had  Great  Britain  wished  a  quarrel  with 
us,  here  was  a  tempting  opportunity.  Every- 
body knew  that  we  had  but  a  small  navy,  an 
insignificant  standing  army,  and  no  coast  de- 
fences ;  that  in  fact  we  were  entirely  unpre- 
pared for  a  conflict.  The  public  opinion  of 
Europe,  too,  was  against  us.  What  did  the 
British  Government  do  ?  It  did  not  avail  it- 
self of  that  opportunity.  It  did  not  resent  the 
language  of  the  message. 

On  the  contrary,  the  Queen's  speech  from 
the  throne  gracefully  turned  that  message  into 
an  "  expression  of  willingness  "  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States  to  co-operate  with  Great 
Britain  in  the  adjustment  of  the  Venezuela 
boundary  dispute. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  conciliatory  mild- 
ness of  this  turn  was  owing  to  the  impression 
produced   in    England   by   the   German  Em- 


1 1 2  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes. 

peror's  congratulatory  dispatch  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  South  African  Republic.  If 
the  two  things  were  so  connected,  it  would 
prove  what  I  have  said,  that  even  the  strong- 
est European  government  will  be  deterred 
from  a  quarrel  with  the  United  States  by  the 
opportunities  which  such  a  quarrel  would  open 
to  its  rivals.  If  the  two  things  were  not  so 
connected  it  would  prove  that  even  the  strong- 
est European  power  will  go  to  very  great 
lengths  in  the  way  of  conciliation  to  remain  on 
friendly  terms  with  this  Republic. 

In  the  face  of  these  indisputable  facts  we  hear 
the  hysterical  cries  of  the  alarmists  who  scent  be- 
hind every  rock  or  bush  a  foreign  foe  standing 
with  dagger  in  hand  ready  to  spring  upon  us, 
and  to  rob  us  of  our  valuables,  if  not  to  kill 
us  outright — or  at  least  making  faces  at  us  and 
insulting  the  Stars  and  Stripes.  Is  not  this 
constant  and  eager  looking  for  danger  or  insult 
where  neither  exists,  very  like  that  melancholy 
form  of  insanity  called  persecution  mania, 
which  is  so  extremely  distressing  to  the  suf- 
ferers and  their  friends  ?  We  may  heartily 
commiserate  the  unfortunate  victims  of  so 
dreadful  an  affliction  ;  but  surely  the  American 
people  should  not  take  such  morbid  hallucina- 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes.   1 1 3 

tions  as  a  reason  for  giving  up  that  inestimable 
blessing  of  not  being  burdened  with  large 
armaments,  and  for  embarking  upon  a  policy 
of  warlike  preparation  and  bellicose  bluster. 

It  is  a  little  less  absurd  in  sound,  but  not  in 
sense,  when  people  say  that  instead  of  trusting 
in  our  position  as  the  great  peace  power 
we  must  at  least  have  plenty  of  warships  to 
"show  our  flag  "  everywhere,  and  to  impress 
foreign  nations  with  our  strength  to  the  end  of 
protecting  and  developing  our  maritime  com- 
merce. Granting  that  we  should  have  a  suffi- 
cient naval  force  to  do  our  share  of  police  work 
on  the  seas,  would  a  large  armament  be  required 
on  account  of  our  maritime  trade  ?  Let  us 
see.  Fifty  years  ago,  as  the  official  statistics 
of  "  the  value  of  foreign  trade  carried  in 
American  and  In  foreign  vessels  "  show,  nearly 
82  per  cent,  of  that  trade  was  carried  on  in 
American  vessels.  Between  1847  ^.nd  1861, 
that  percentage  fell  to  65.  Then  the  civil  war 
came,  at  the  close  of  which  American  bottoms 
carried  only  28  per  cent,  of  that  trade  ;  and 
now  we  carry  less  than  1 2  per  cent.  During  the 
period  when  this  maritime  trade  rose  to  its  high- 
est development,  we  had  no  naval  force  to  be 
in  any  degree  compared  with  those  of  the  great 

8 


1 14  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes. 

European  powers.  Nor  did  we  need  any  for 
the  protection  of  our  maritime  commerce,  for 
no  foreign  power  molested  that  commerce. 
In  fact,  since  the  war  of  181 2,  it  has  not  been 
molested  by  anybody  so  as  to  require  armed 
protection  except  during  the  civil  war  by  Con- 
federate cruisers.  The  harassment  ceased 
again  when  the  civil  war  ended,  but  our  mer- 
chant shipping  on  the  high  seas  continued  to 
decline. 

That  decline  was  evidently  not  owing  to  the 
superiority  of  other  nations  In  naval  armament. 
It  was  coincident  with  the  development  of 
ocean  transportation  by  iron  steamships  Instead 
of  wooden  sailing  ships.  The  wooden  sailing 
ships  we  had  In  plenty,  but  of  Iron  steamships 
we  have  only  few.  It  appears,  therefore,  that 
whatever  we  may  need  a  large  war  fleet  for.  It 
Is  certainly  not  for  the  development  of  our 
maritime  commerce.  To  raise  that  commerce 
to  its  old  superiority  again,  we  want  not  more 
warships  but  more  merchant  vessels.  To  ob- 
tain these  we  need  a  policy  enabling  American 
capital  and  enterprise  to  compete  In  that  busi- 
ness with  foreign  nations.  And  to  make  such 
a  policy  fruitful,  we  need,  above  all  things, 
peace.     And  we  shall  have  that  peace  so  long 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes,    1 1 5 

as  we  abstain  from  driving  some  foreign  power 
against  its  own  inclination  into  a  war  with  the 
United  States. 

Can  there  be  any  motive,  other  than  the 
absurd  ones  mentioned,  to  induce  us  to  pro- 
voke such  a  war  ?  I  have  heard  it  said  that  a 
war  might  be  desirable  to  enliven  business 
again.  Would  that  not  be  as  wise  and  moral 
as  a  proposition  to  burn  down  our  cities  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  the  masons  and  carpenters 
something  to  do  ?  Nay,  we  are  even  told  that 
there  are  persons  who  would  have  a  foreign 
war  on  any  pretext,  no  matter  with  whom,  to 
the  end  of  bringing  on  a  certain  change  in  our 
monetary  policy.  But  the  thought  of  plotting 
in  cold  blood  to  break  the  peace  of  the  country 
and  to  send  thousands  of  our  youths  to  slaugh- 
ter and  to  desolate  thousands  of  American 
homes  for  an  object  of  internal  policy,  what- 
ever it  may  be,  is  so  abominable,  so  ghastly, 
so  appalling,  that  I  dismiss  it  as  impossible  of 
belief. 

I  know,  however,  from  personal  experience, 
of  some  otherwise  honorable  and  sensible  men 
who  wish  for  a  war  on  sentimental — aye,  on 
high  moral  grounds.  One  of  them,  whom  I 
much  esteem,  confessed  to  me  that  he  longed 


1 1 6  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes. 

for  a  war,  if  not  with  England,  then  with  Spain 
or  some  other  power,  as  he  said,  "  to  lift  the 
American  people  out  of  their  materialism,  and 
to  awaken  once  more  that  heroic  spirit  which 
moved  young  Gushing  to  risk  his  life  in  blow- 
ing up  the  Confederate  steamer  Albemarle.'' 
This,  when  I  heard  it, .  fairly  took  my  breath 
away.  And  yet,  we  must  admit,  such  fanciful 
confusion  of  ideas  is  not  without  charm  to  some 
of  our  high-spirited  young  men.  But  what  a 
mocking  delusion  it  is  !  To  lift  a  people  out 
of  materialism  by  war  !  Has  not  war  always 
excited  the  spirit  of  reckless  and  unscrupulous 
speculation,  not  only  while  it  was  going  on,  but 
also  afterwards,  by  the  economic  disorders  ac- 
companying and  outlasting  it?  Has  it  not 
always  stimulated  the  rapid  and  often  dis- 
honest accumulation  of  riches  on  one  side, 
while  spreading  and  intensifying  want  and 
misery  on  the  other  ?  Has  it  not  thus  always 
had  a  tendency  to  plunge  a  people  still  deeper 
into  materialism  ?  Has  not  every  great  war 
left  a  dark  streak  of  demoralization  behind  ? 
Has  it  not  thus  always  proved  dangerous  to 
the  purity  of  republican  governments  ?  Is  not 
this  our  own  experience  ?  And  as  to  awaken- 
ing the  heroic  spirit — does  it  not,  while  stirring 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes.   1 1 7 

noble  impulses  in  some,  excite  the  base  pas- 
sions in  others  ?  And  do  not  the  young  Cush- 
ings  among  us  find  opportunities  for  heroism 
in  the  life  of  peace  too  ?  Would  it  be  wise  in 
the  economy  of  the  universe  to  bring  on  a  war, 
with  its  bloodshed  and  devastation,  its  distress 
and  mourning,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  ac- 
commodating our  young  braves  with  chances 
for  blowing  up  ships  ?  The  old  Roman  poet 
tells  us  that  it  is  sweet  and  glorious  to  die  for 
one's  country.  It  is  noble,  indeed.  But  to  die 
on  the  battle-field  is  not  the  highest  achieve- 
ment of  heroism.  To  live  for  a  good  cause 
honestly,  earnestly,  unselfishly,  laboriously,  is 
at  least  as  noble  and  heroic  as  to  die  for  it,  and 
usually  far  more  difficult. 

I  have  seen  war  ;  I  have  seen  it  with  its 
glories  and  its  horrors  ;  with  its  noble  emotions 
and  its  bestialities  ;  with  its  exaltations  and 
triumphs  and  its  unspeakable  miseries  and 
baneful  corruptions  ;  and  I  say  to  you,  I  feel 
my  blood  tingle  with  indignation  when  I  hear 
the  flippant  talk  of  war  as  if  it  were  only  a 
holiday  pastime  or  an  athletic  sport.  We  are 
often  told  that  there  are  things  worse  than  war. 
Yes,  but  not  many.  He  deserves  the  curse  of 
mankind  who  in  the  exercise  of  power  forgets 


1 18  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes, 

that  war  should  be  only  the  very  last  resort 
even  in  contending  for  a  just  and  beneficent 
end,  after  all  the  resources  of  peaceful  methods 
are  thoroughly  exhausted.  As  an  American, 
proud  of  his  country  and  anxious  that  this  Re- 
public should  prove  itself  equal  to  the  most 
glorious  of  its  opportunities,  I  cannot  but  de- 
nounce as  a  wretched  fatuity  that  so-called 
patriotism  which  will  not  remember  that  we 
are  the  envy  of  the  whole  world  for  the  price- 
less privilege  of  being  exempt  from  the  oppres- 
sive burden  of  warlike  preparations  ;  which, 
when  it  sees  other  nations  groaning  under  that 
load,  tauntingly  asks,  *'  Why  do  you  not  dis- 
arm ? "  and  then  insists  that  the  American 
people  too  shall  put  the  incubus  of  heavy 
armament  on  their  backs  ;  and  which  would 
drag  this  Republic  down  from  its  high  degree 
of  the  championship  of  peace  among  nations 
and  degrade  it  to  the  vulgar  level  of  the  bully 
ready  and  eager  for  a  fight. 

We  hear  much  of  the  necessity  of  an  elabo- 
rate system  of  coast  fortifications  to  protect  our 
seaports  from  assault.  How  far  such  a  system 
may  be  desirable  I  will  not  here  discuss.  But 
I  am  confident  our  strongest,  most  effective, 
most  trustworthy,  and  infinitely  the  cheapest 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes,   1 1 9 

coast  defence  will  consist  in  '*  Fort  Justice," 
''  Fort  Good  Sense,"  "  Fort  Self-respect," 
"  Fort  Good-will,"  and  if  international  differ- 
ences really  do  arise,  "■  Fort  Arbitration." 

Let  no  one  accuse  me  of  resorting  to  the 
clap-trap  of  the  stump  speech  in  discussing  this 
grave  subject.  I  mean  exactly  what  I  say,  and 
am  solemnly  in  earnest.  This  Republic  can 
have  no  other  armament  as  effective  as  the 
weapons  of  peace.  Its  security,  its  influence, 
its  happiness,  and  its  glory  will  be  the  greater 
the  less  it  thinks  of  war.  Its  moral  authority 
will  be  far  more  potent  than  the  heavy 
squadrons  and  the  big  guns  of  others.  And 
this  authority  will,  in  its  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations,  be  best  maintained  by  that 
justice  which  is  the  duty  of  all ;  by  that  gener- 
ous regard  not  only  for  the  rights,  but  also  the 
self-respect,  of  others,  which  is  the  distinguish- 
ing mark  of  the  true  gentleman  :  and  by  that 
patient  forbearance  which  is  the  most  gracious 
virtue  of  the  strong. 

For  all  these  reasons  it  appears  to  me  this 
Republic  is  the  natural  champion  of  the  great 
peace  measure,  for  the  furtherance  of  which 
we  are  met.  The  permanent  establishment  of 
a  general  court  of  arbitration  to  be  composed 


1 20  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes, 

of  representative  jurists  of  the  principal  states, 
and  to  take  cognizance  of  all  internationl  dis- 
putes that  cannot  be  settled  by  ordinary  diplo- 
matic negotiation,  is  no  doubt  the  ideal  to  be 
aimed  at.  If  this  cannot  be  reached  at  once, 
the  conclusion  of  an  arbitration  treaty  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  may  be 
regarded  as  a  great  step  in  that  direction. 

I  say  this  not  as  a  so-called  Anglo-maniac 
bowing  down  before  everything  English. 
While  I  admire  the  magnificent  qualities  and 
achievements  of  that  great  nation,  I  am  not 
blind  to  its  faulty.  I  suppose  Englishmen 
candidly  expressing  their  sentiments  speak  in 
a  similar  strain  of  us.  But  I  believe  that  an 
arbitration  agreement  between  just  these  two 
countries  would  not  only  be  of  immense  im- 
portance to  themselves,  but  also  serve  as  an 
example  to  invite  imitation  in  wilder  circles. 
In  this  respect  I  do  not  think  that  the  so-called 
blood-relationship  of  the  two  nations,  which 
would  make  such  an  arbitration  agreement  be- 
tween them  appear  more  natural,  furnishes  the 
strongest  reason  for  it.  It  is  indeed  true  that 
the  ties  binding  the  two  peoples  sentimentally 
together  would  give  to  a  war  between  them  an 
especially   wicked   and   heinous   aspect.     But 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes.    1 2 1 

were  their  arbitration  agreement  placed  mainly 
on  this  ground,  it  would  lose  much  of  its  im- 
portant significance  for  the  world  at  large. 

In  truth,  however,  the  common  ancestry,  the 
common  origin  of  institutions  and  laws,  the 
common  traditions,  the  common  literature,  and 
so  on,  have  not  prevented  conflicts  between  the 
Americans  and  the  English  before,  and  they 
would  not  alone  be  sufficient  to  prevent  them 
in  the  future.  Such  conflicts  may,  indeed,  be 
regarded  as  family  feuds  ;  but  family  feuds  are 
apt  to  be  the  bitterest  of  all.  In  point  of  fact, 
there  is  by  no  means  such  a  community  or 
accord  of  interest  or  feeling  between  the  two 
nations  as  to  preclude  hot  rivalries  and  jeal- 
ousies on  many  fields,  which  might  now  and 
then  bring  forth  an  exciting  clash.  We  hear 
it  even  said  in  this  country  that  Great  Britain 
is  not  the  power  with  whom  to  have  a  perma- 
nent peace  arrangement,  because  she  is  so  high- 
handed in  her  dealings  with  other  nations.  I 
should  not  wonder  if  the  same  thing  were  said 
in  England  about  the  United  States.  This  of 
course  is  not  an  argument  against  an  arbitra- 
tion agreement,  but  rather  for  it.  Such  an 
arrangement  between  nations  of  such  temper 
is  especially  called  for  to  prevent  that  temper 


122  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes, 

from  running  away  with  calm  reason.  Between 
perfect  angels  from  heaven  an  arbitration  treaty 
would  be  superfluous. 

The  institution  of  a  regulated  and  perma- 
nent system  of  arbitration  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  would  therefore  not 
be  a  mere  sentimental  cooing  between  loving 
cousins,  nor  a  mere  stage  show  gotten  up  for 
the  amusement  of  the  public,  but  a  very  seri- 
ous contrivance  intended  for  very  serious  busi- 
ness. It  will  set  to  mankind  the  example  of 
two  very  great  nations,  the  greatest  rivals  in 
the  world,  neither  of  them  a  mere  theorist  or 
sentimental  dreamer,  both  intensely  practical, 
self-willed,  and  hard-headed,  deliberately  agree- 
ing to  abstain  from  the  barbarous  ways  of 
bygone  times  in  adjusting  the  questions  of 
conflicting  interest  or  ambition  that  may  arise 
between  them,  and  to  resort  instead  in  all 
cases  of  difficulty  to  the  peaceable  and  civilized 
methods  suggested  by  the  enlightenment,  the 
moral  sense,  and  the  humane  spirit  of  our  age. 
If  these  two  nations  prove  that  this  can  be 
done,  will  not  the  conclusion  gradually  force 
itself  upon  other  civilized  nations  that  by 
others  too  it  ought  to  be  done,  and  finally  that 
it  must  be  done  ?     This  Is  the  service  to  be 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes.    1 2  3 

rendered,   not  only  to  ourselves,  but  to  man- 
kind. 

While  the  practicability  of  international  ar- 
bitration by  tribunals  established  in  each  case 
has  been  triumphantly  proved,  there  is  some 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  a  perma- 
nent tribunal  is  possible,  whether  it  can  be  so 
organized  as  to  be  fit  for  the  adjustment  of  all 
disputes  that  might  come  before  it,  and  whether 
there  would  be  any  power  behind  it  to  enforce 
its  adjudications  in  case  one  party  or  the  other 
refused  to  comply.  Such  doubts  should  not 
disturb  our  purpose.  Similar  doubts  had  to 
be  overcome  at  every  step  of  the  progress 
from  the  ancient  wager  of  battle  to  the  present 
organization  of  courts  of  justice.  I  am  san- 
guine enough  to  believe  that  as  soon  as  the 
two  governments  have  once  resolved  that  a 
fixed  system  of  international  arbitration  shall 
be  established  between  them,  the  same  ingen- 
uity which  has  been  exerted  in  discovering 
difficulties  will  then  be  exerted  in  removing 
them,  and  most  of  them  will  be  found  not  to 
exist.  The  end  to  be  reached  in  good  faith 
determined  upon,  a  workable  machinery  will 
soon  be  devised,  be  it  a  permanent  arbitration 
tribunal,  or  the  adoption  of  an  organic  rule  for 


1 24  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes, 

the  appointment  of  a  special  tribunal  for  each 
case.  We  may  trust  to  experience  to  develop 
the  best  system. 

Neither  am  I  troubled  by  the  objection  that 
there  are  some  international  disputes  which  in 
their  very  nature  cannot  be  submitted  to  arbi- 
tration, especially  those  involving  questions  of 
national  honor.  When  the  habit  of  such  sub- 
mission is  once  well  established,  it  will  doubt- 
less be  found  that  most  of  the  questions  now 
thought  unfit  for  it,  are  entirely  capable  of 
composition  by  methods  of  reason  and  equity. 
And  as  to  so-called  questions  of  honor,  it 
is  time  for  modern  civilization  to  leave  behind 
it  those  mediaeval  notions  according  to  which 
personal  honor  found  its  best  protection  in  the 
duelling  pistol,  and  national  honor  could  be 
vindicated  only  by  slaughter  and  devastation. 
Moreover,  was  not  the  great  Alabama  case, 
which  involved  points  very  closely  akin  to 
questions  of  honor,  settled  by  international 
arbitration,  and  does  not  this  magnificent 
achievement  form  one  of  the  most  glorious 
pages  of  the  common  history  of  America  and 
England  ?  Truly,  the  two  nations  that  ac- 
complished this,  need  not  be  afraid  of  unad- 
justable  questions  of  honor  in  the  future. 


Arbitration  in  International  Disputes,    i  2  5 

Indeed,  there  will  be  no  recognized  power 
behind  a  Court  of  Arbitration,  like  an  inter- 
national sheriff  or  other  executionary  force,  to 
compel  the  acceptance  of  its  decisions  by  an 
unwilling  party.  In  this  extreme  case  there 
would  be,  as  the  worst  possible  result,  what 
there  would  have  been  without  arbitration — 
war.  But  in  how  many  of  the  fourscore  cases 
of  international  arbitration  we  have  witnessed 
in  this  century  has  such  an  enforcing  power 
been  needed  ?  In  not  a  single  one.  In  every 
instance  the  same  spirit  which  moved  the 
contending  parties  to  accept  arbitration,  moved 
them  to  accept  the  verdict.  Why,  then,  bor- 
row trouble  where  experience  has  shown  that 
there  is  no  danger  of  mischief  ?  The  most 
trustworthy  compelling  power  will  always  be 
the  sense  of  honor  of  the  parties  concerned 
and  their  respect  for  the  enlightened  judgment 
of  civilized  mankind  which  will  watch  the  pro- 
ceedings. 

We  may,  therefore,  confidently  expect  that 
a  permanent  system  of  arbitration  will  prove 
as  feasible  as  it  is  desirable.  Nor  is  there  any 
reason  to  doubt  that  its  general  purpose  is  in- 
telligently and  warmly  favored  by  the  best 
public  sentiment  both  in  England  and  in  the 


126  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes, 

United  States.  The  memorial  of  two  hundred 
and  thirty-three  members  of  the  British  House 
of  Commons,  which,  in  1887,  was  presented  to 
the  President  and  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  expressing  the  wish  that  all  future  dif- 
ferences between  the  two  countries  be  sub- 
mitted to  arbitration,  was,  in  1890,  echoed  by 
a  unanimous  vote  of  our  Congress  requesting 
the  President  to  open  negotiations  in  this 
sense  with  all  countries  with  which  we  had 
diplomatic  relations.  Again  this  sentiment 
broke  forth  in  England  as  well  as  here  on  the 
occasion  of  the  Venezuela  excitement  in  de- 
monstrations of  the  highest  respectability.  In- 
deed, the  popular  desire  as  well  as  the  argument 
seem  to  be  all  on  one  side.  I  have  heard  of 
only  one  objection  that  makes  the  slightest 
pretence  to  statesmanship,  and  it  need  only  be 
stated  to  cover  its  supporters  with  confusion. 
It  is  that  we  are  a  young  and  aspiring  people, 
and  that  a  binding  arbitration  treaty  would 
hamper  us  in  our  freedom  of  action. 

Let  the  light  be  turned  upon  this.  What  is 
it  that  an  arbitration  treaty  contemplates  ? 
That  in  all  cases  of  dispute  between  this  and 
a  certain  other  country  there  shall  be  an  im- 
partial tribunal  regularly  appointed  to  decide 


Arbitration  i7t  International  Disputes,    i  2  7 

upon  principles  of  international  law,  of  equity, 
of  reason,  what  this  and  what  the  other  coun- 
try maybe  justly  entitled  to.  And  this  arrange- 
ment is  to  be  shunned  as  hampering  our  free- 
dom of  action  ! 

What  will  you  think  of  a  man  who  tells  you 
that  he  feels  himself  intolerably  hampered  in 
his  freedom  of  action  by  the  ten  command- 
ments or  by  the  criminal  code  ?  What  respect 
and  confidence  can  a  nation  claim  for  its  char- 
acter that  rejects  a  trustworthy  and  well- 
regulated  method  of  ascertaining  and  establish- 
ing right  and  justice,  avowedly  to  preserve  its 
freedom  of  action  ?  Shame  upon  those  who 
would  have  this  great  Republic  play  so  dis- 
reputable a  part  !  I  protest  that  the  American 
people  are  an  honorable  people.  Wherever 
its  interests  or  ambitions  may  lead  this  great 
nation,  I  am  sure  it  will  always  preserve  that 
self-respect  which  will  prompt  it  rather  to  court 
the  search-light  of  truth  and  justice  than  by 
skulking  on  dark  and  devious  paths  seek  to 
evade  It. 

Therefore,  I  doubt  not  that  the  patriotic 
citizens  assembled  here  to  promote  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  permanent  system  of  international 
arbitration  may  be   confident  of   having   the 


1 28  Arbitration  in  International  Disputes, 

warm  sympathy  of  the  American  people  be- 
hind them  when  they  knock  at  the  door  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  and  say  to  him  : 
**  In  the  name  of  all  good  Americans  we  com- 
mend this  cause  to  your  care.  If  carried  to  a 
successful  issue  it  will  hold  up  this  Republic  to 
its  noblest  ideals.  It  will  illuminate  with  fresh 
lustre  the  close  of  this  great  century.  It  will 
write  the  name  of  the  American  people  fore- 
most upon  the  roll  of  the  champions  of  the 
world's  peace   and    of  true  civilization." 


SOUND  MONEY. 

THE  SILVER  SITUATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.    By 

F.  W.  Taussig,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Economy  in 
Harvard  University  ;  author  of  "  The  Tariff  History  of  the  United 
States."     (No.   74  in  the  Questions  of  the  Day  Series.)     8vo,  cloth, 

$    75 

"  Professor  Taussig  is  already  well  known  by  his  admirable  '  History  of  the  United 
States  Tariff '  ;  and  at  a  time  when  currency  problems  are  attracting  attention  in  Europe, 
Asia,  and  America,  the  appearance  of  a  treatise  from  his  pen  on  the  history  of  silver  in 
the  United  States  during  the  last  decade  is  peculiarly  opportune." — London  Times. 

"  We  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  this  book  is  in  all  respects  as  excellent  as  it  is  oppor- 
tune. It  is  extremely  concise  in  statement,  and  deserves  to  be  read  by  the  learned  as  well 
as  by  the  ignorant,  while  the  times  should  insure  it  the  widest  circulation." — New  York 
Even  ing  Post. 

CHAPTERS     ON     THE     THEORY     AND     HISTORY    OF 

BANKING.     By   Charles   F.    Dunbar,    of    Harvard  University. 

i2mo .         .         $1  25 

Contents  :  Introductory — Discount,  Deposit,  and  Issue — Banking 
Operations  and  Accounts — The  Check  System — Bank-Notes — Com- 
bined Reserves — The  Bank  of  Amsterdam — The  Bank  of  France — 
The  National  Banks  of  the  United  States— The  Bank  of  England — 
The  Reichbank  of  Germany. 

"  Prof.  Dunbar's  exposition  is  eminently  clear  and  satisfactory,  and  gives  a  better  Idea 
of  banking  operations  than  can  be  got  from  any  other  treatise  we  have  met  with."— A^.  Y. 
Critic. 

THE  CURRENCY  AND  THE  BANKING  LAW  OF  CANADA. 
Considered  with  Reference  to  Currency  Reform  in  the  United  States. 
By  William  C.  Corn  well.  President  of  the  City  Bank  of  Buffalo. 
8vo,  paper $    75 

"  Mr.  Cornwell's  address  on  Canadian  Bank  Currency  three  years  ago  at  New  Orleans 
seems  now  about  to  accomplish  a  practical  result.  It  caused  American  bankers  to  examine 
the  Canadian  currency  system,  and  so  favorably  have  they  been  impressed  with  it  that  at 
their  convention  at  Baltimore  last  September  they  drew  up  a  scheme  of  currency  reform 
which  is  meeting  with  wide  commendation.  It  is  called  the  Baltimore  plan,  and  is  actually 
a  transcript  of  the  Canadian  banking  laws." — Montreal  Gazette. 

"  One  of  the  clearest  expositions  of  the  Dominion  law  with  reference  to  its  bearing  on 
Currency  Reform  that  we  have  yet  seen." — The  Financier. 

"  A  very  valuable  volume.  It  will  undoubtedly  prove  to  be  an  effective  contribution 
to  the  campaign  of  currency  education." — Buffalo  Courier. 

A  SOUND  CURRENCY  AND  BANKING  SYSTEM:  HOW 
IT  MAY  BE  SECURED.  By  Allen  Ripley  Foote,  author  of 
"The  Law  of  Incorporated  Companies  Operating  under  Municipal 
Franchises,"  etc.  (No.  81  in  the  Questions  of  the  Day  Series.)  8vo, 
cloth * $     75 

"  He  attributes  the  depression  in  business  to  the  ignorance  of  the  people  on  monetary 
questions.  .  .  .  Mr.  Foote's  arguments  are  logical,  and  the  whole  discussion  shows  a 
wide  knowledge  of  all  monetary  questions.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  our  troubles  may  be 
solved  in  the  simple  way  which  Mr.  Foote  points  out." — Detroit  Free  Press. 

"  The  book  is  a  valuable  addition  to  the  literature  of  this  subject." — A''.  Y,  World. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

new   YORK  AND  LONDON 


THE  NATURAL  LAW  OF  MONEY.  The  successive  steps  in  the 
growth  of  Money  traced  from  the  days  of  Barter  to  the  Introduction  of 
the  Modern  Clearing-house,  and  Monetary  Principles  examined  in  their 
relation  to  Past  and  Present  Legislation.  By  William  Brough. 
i2mo,  cloth, $1  oo 

"  The  book  is  a  clear  and  forcible  argument  for  individual  freedom  and  against  Gov- 
ernment dictation  with  regard  to  the  choice  of  material  for  money.  The  author  holds 
that '  the  South  and  West  have  been  overtaxed  by  monopoHstic  money.  Every  locality 
should  be  left  free  to  use  the  more  adaptable  metal,  whether  silver  or  gold,'  The  author 
believes  that  in  the  money  question,  as  in  most  public  questions,  there  are  two  sides,  and 
that  neither  the  advocates  of  gold  alone  nor  those  of  silver  alone  for  money  use  are  wholly 
Tig\iX.."— Public  Opinion. 

"  The  author's  style  is  clear  and  concise,  and  he  gives  a  great  deal  of  valuable  infor- 
mation well  adapted  to  the  understanding  of  the  general  reader  in  a  brief  compass." — 
Boston  Saturday  Eve.  Gazette. 

A  HISTORY  OF  MONEY  AND  PRICES.  Being  an  Inquiry  into 
their  Relations  from  the  Thirteenth  Century  to  the  Present  Time.  By 
J.  ScHOENHOF ;  author  of  "The  Economy  of  High  Wages,"  etc. 
(No.  85  in  the  Questions  of  the  Day  Series.)     i2mo      .         .         $1  50 

"Mr.  Schoenhof's  book,  'Money  and  Prices,'  is  a  positive  and  most  valuable  con- 
tribution to  economic  literature  inasmuch  as  it  supplies,  in  a  clear  and  popular  manner, 
just  the  information  necessary  for  the  formation  of  correct  opinions  respecting  the  vexed 
problem  of  prices,  and  especially  respecting  their  relation  to  monetary  changes.  The  ex- 
amination ought  to  be  more  an  essential  of  every  high  educational  system." — DAvid  A. 
Wells. 

PRINCIPLES  AND  PRACTICE  OF  FINANCE.  A  Practical 
Guide  for  Bankers,  Merchants,  and  Lawyers,  together  with  a  Summary 
of  the  National  and  State  Banking  Laws,  and  the  Legal  Rates  of  In- 
terest, Tables  of  Foreign  Coins,  and  a  Glossary  of  Commercial  and 
Financial  Terms.     By  Edward  Carroll,  Jr.    8vo,  cloth  .        $1  75 

"  I  have  examined  with  great  pleasure  Mr.  Carroll's  book  which  you  sent  me.  I 
think  that  it  is  an  admirable  and  useful  book.  If  I  was  in  that  line  now  I  would  use  it 
as  a  text  book."— Prof.  W.  E.  Sumner,  of  Yale. 

"  Mr.  Carroll's  volume  aims  to  be  a  practical  guide  for  bankers,  merchants,  and  law- 

fers,  and  certainly  does  give  a  great  deal  of  information  which  they  ought  to  know.  .  .  . 
t  is  refreshing  to  get  a  book  on  finance  which  is  not  given  up  to  the  discussion  of  the 
writer's  personal  views  on  the  current  questions  of  financial  agitation.  .  .  .  These 
subjects  will  soon  fail  to  interest,  for  in  the  nature  of  things,  they  will  soon  be  settled. 
They  are  too  practical  to  remain  open.  But  Mr.  Carroll's  volume  will  be  valuable  long 
after  those  matters  have  been  disposed  of.  It  is  well  written,  and  the  index  makes  it  a 
convenient  book  of  reference." — Chicago  Inter-Ocean . 

ECONOMICS.  An  Account  of  the  Relations  between  Private  Property 
and  Public  Welfare.  By  Arthur  T.  Hadley,  author  of  "  Railroad 
Transportation,  its  History  and  its  Laws."     8°         .         .         .     $2  50 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS. 


Practical  Economics.  By  David  A.  Wells.  A  Collection  of  Essays 
respecting  certain  of  the  Economic  Experiences  of  the  United  States, 
8°,  cloth $1  50 

Chief  Contents. — A  Modern  Financial  Utopia — The  True  Story  of  the  Leaden 
Images— The  Taxation  of  Distilled  Spirits — Recent  Phases  of  the  Tariff  Question — Tariff 
Revision — The  Pauper-Labor  Argument— The  Silver  Question — Measures  of  Value — The 
Production  and  Distribution  of  Wealth. 

"  In  my  clear  opinion,  it  is  the  most  comprehensive,  conclusive,  and  powerful  state- 
ment of  the  truth  respecting  freedom  of  exchange,  as  to  theory  and  as  to  practice,  that 
exists  in  any  language  or  literature." — Manton  Marble. 

Relation  of  the  Tariff  to  Wages.  By  David  A.  Wells.  8°, 
paper       ...........  20 

Our  Merchant  Marine.  How  it  rose,  increased,  became  great, 
declined,  and  decayed  ;  with  an  inquiry  into  the  conditions  essential 
to  its  resuscitation  and  prosperity.  By  David  A.  Wells.  (Ques- 
tions of  the  Day  Series,  No.  3.)    8° $1  00 

The  Distribution  of  Products :  or.  The  Mechanism  and  the 

Metaphysics  of  Exchange.     By  Edward   Atkinson.     Three 

Essays.     What  Makes  the  Rate  of  Wages?    What  is  a  Bank?     The 

Railway,  the  Farmer,  and  the  Public.     Second  edition,  much  enlarged. 

8°,  cloth $1  50 

"  Are  of  great  force,  clearness,  and  value." — Inier-Ocean,  Chicago. 
"  Facts  of  general  interest  and  deductions  of  scientific  value.     .     .     Clear  and  cogent 
method." — Republican^  Springfield,  Mass. 

The  Margin  of  Profits :  How  Profits  are  Now  Divided ;  What  Part  of 
the  Present  Hours  of  Labor  can  Now  be  Spared.  By  Edward  Atkin- 
son. Together  with  the  Reply  of  Mr.  E.  M.  Chamberlain,  repre- 
senting the  Labor  Union,  and  Mr.  Atkinson's  rejoinder  to  the  Reply. 
(Questions  of  the  Day  Series,  No.  40.)     Paper,  40  cents  ;  cloth  75 

"  The  volume  deserves  strong  and  hearty  commendation j  should  be  read  by  voters 
generally,  and  ought  to  be  circulated  among  discontented  v/orkingmen  as  far  as  possible." 
— Christian  Intelligencer. 

Taxation  and  Work.  A  Series  of  Treatises  on  the  Tariff  and  the 
Currency.     By  Edward  Atkinson.     12°        .         .        .        .     $1  25 

"  His  book  is  so  comprehensive— the  result  of  so  much  deep  research  and  thought— 
that  no  review  v^^ill  begin  to  do  it  full  justice  ;  it  must  be  studied  to  be  appreciated,  and- its 
appreciation  will  prove  of  the  greatest  value  to  any  one.''''— Portland  Transcript. 

The  Industrial  Progress  of  the  Nation.  Consumption  limited ; 
Production  unlimited.     By  Edward  Atkinson.     8°,  cloth     .     $2  50 

"  The  problems  presented  are  treated  with  skill  and  force,  and  will  interest  even 
those  who  do  not  agree  with  the  conclusions  reached  by  the  author."— A''.  Y.  Journal  of 
Commerce, 

A  History  of  Money  and  Prices.  Being  an  Inquiry  into  their 
Relations  from  the  Beginning  of  the  Thirteenth  Century  to  the  Present 
Time.  By  J.  Schoenhof,  author  of  "  The  Economy  of  High  Wages," 
etc.     "  Questions  of  the  Day "  Series  No.  86.     12°  .         .         .     $1  50 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  G.  F,  FUTNAM'S  SONS. 

Railroad  Transportation:    Its    History  and   its   Laws.     By 

Arthur  T.  Hadley,  some-time  Commissioner  of  Labor  Statistics  of 
the  State  of  Connecticut,  author  of  "  Economics."     8°,  cloth    .     $i  50 

"  Prof.  Hadley's  treatise  is  no  less  timely  than  it  is  valuable.  .  .  .  Taken  as  a 
whole,  the  work  is  the  result  of  an  investigation  no  less  wide  than  exhaustive,  and  one  pos- 
sible only  to  a  thoroughly  equipped  man,  familiar  with  many  modern  languages." — New 
York  Nation. 

"  Railroad  men  will  find  much  of  value  in  the  chapters,  while  investors  in  the  stocks 
and  bonds,  as  well  as  shippers,  will  find  all  these  subjects  wisely  and  skilfully  handled.— 
Chicago  Inter-Ocean. 

Economics.  An  Account  of  the  Relations  between  Private  Property  and 
Public  Welfare.  By  Arthur  Twiining  Hadley,  Professor  of  Politi- 
cal Economy  in  Yale  University,  some-time  Commissioner  of  Labor 
Statistics  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  author  of  "  Railroad  Transporta- 
tion :  Its  History  and  its  Laws."     8°,  gilt  top  .         .         .         .     $2  50 

Contents  :  Public  and  Private  Wealth — Economic  Responsibility — Com- 
petition— Speculation — Investment  of  Capital — Combination  of  Capital — 
Money — Credit — Profits — Wages — Machinery  and  Labor — Co-operation — 
Protective  Legislation — Government  Revenue. 

Economics.  Being  the  History  of  Ideas  in  Economics.  By  Henry 
Dunning  Macleod,  M.A.,  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  and  the 
Inner  Temple  ;  Barrister-at-Law.  Author  of  "  The  Theory  of 
Credit,"  etc.     8°      .         . $3  00 

An  Introduction  to  English  Economic  History  and  Theory. 

By  W.  J.  Ashley,  M.A.  ,  Professor  of  Economic  History  in  Harvard 
University,  some-time  Fellow  of  Lincoln  College,  Oxford. 

Part  I.— The  Middle  Ages $1  50 

The  Manor  and  Village  Community  ;  Merchant  and  Craft  Guilds  ; 
Economic  Theories  and  Legislation. 

"  Mr.  Ashley's  treatment  of  his  subject  and  evidently  faithful  and  thorough  investi- 
gation of  the  sources  of  information  speak  eloquently  for  his  scholarship  and  will  render 
his  work,  when  completed,  an  unusually  valuable  and  interesting  addition  to  economic 
history." — Boston  Fost. 

Part  II.— The  End  of  the  Middle  Ages  .        .        .        .    $3  00 

The  Supremacy  of  the  Towns  ;  The  Crafts ;  The  Woollen  Industry j^ 
The  Agrarian  Industry ;  The  Relief  of  the  Poor  ;  the  Canonist 
Doctrine. 

The  Tariff  History  of  the  United  States,  1 789- 1 888.  By  Prof. 
F.  W.  Taussig.  Comprising  the  material  contained  in  "Protection 
to  Young  Industries "  and  "History  of  the  Present  Tariff,"  together 
with  the  revisions  and  additions  needed  to  complete  the  narrative. 
i2mo,  pp.  vii.  +  269         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .     $r  25 

"  The  value  of  Prof.  Taussig's  book  is  that  its  conclusions  are  founded  on  a  careful 
study  of  a  wide  range  of  facts,  covering  our  whole  national  history." — Christian  Register. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON. 


"ixBI^': 


Y. 


63— Want  and  Weal 

ti:r    Dav. 


64. 


tOAN  DEPT 


**  '■^rhe'last'^'e  stamped  belo«.  ot 

6,    ^isbooUU_due^o°|'^^^ch.e^-^^^ 


68       Renewed  books  ate 


72- 


L.  - 

RECEIVED 


Pa 


79— Joint — ' 

80-"  Con      LjOAHJP^I 

Si—The  F  ri^CkP"- 

83— Natural 

paper 
84— Real   Bi' 

EVERET 

85 — Congress  - 

High  We       (F2336s10)4='od  --,  ^utnor  of  "  Economy 

87  -America  and  England.     By  Well's,  Phelfs*  and  s.  ni'^y 


Q' 


r.xi 


h^ 


AUTHOR    INDEX    TO    THE 

QUESTIONS   OF    THE    DAY"    SERIES. 


Alexander.  E.  P.,  No.  36 


Jones,  \V.  II.,  No.  39 


^^^B^l 


Allen, 

J.  H.,  No.  53 

Juglar,  C,  No.  75 

Atkinson,  E.,  No.  40 

Lawton,  G.  W.,  No.  25 

Bagehot,  \V.,  No.  28 

Lowell,  J.  S.,  Nos.  13,  70 

Baker, 

C.  \V.,No.  59 

Lunt,  E.  C,  N\).  44'" 

Blair,  L.  H..  N^^^ 

Moore,  J.  S.,  No.  50 

Bonhai 
Bourne 

— •  ~w\ 

.^„ 

^ 

Bowke 
Bruce, 

ei6634 

Cleveh 
Codma 
Cowpe 
Dabne 
Donne 

'     V'* 

DosP: 

, 

Dougli 

Dugda 
Eaton, 
Ehrich 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Elliott 

J.  R.,  No.  62 

Storey,  M.,  No.   5S 

Foote, 

A.  R.,  No.  82 

Strange,  D.,  No.  72 

Ford,  ^ 

^V.  C,  Nos.  5,  6 

Taussig,  F.  W.,  Nos.  47,  74 

Foulke 

,  W.  D.,  No.  43 

"  Tax-"&ayer,"  No.  55 

Giffen, 

R.,  No.  20 

Tyler,  L.  G.,  No.  68 

Gordoi 

1,  AjC  No.  85 

\Yells,  D.  A.,  Nos.  3,  54,  64,  71 

Hall,I 

1,  No.  71 

^Yheeler,  E.  P.,  No.  84 

Hitchc 

ock,  H.,  No.  37 

Winn,  H.,  No.  j'' 

Jacobi. 

M.  P.,  No.  80 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S 

SONS,    PUP.LISHERS, 

N'Ew  York 

London 

bj^and 

29  West  23d  Street 

24  Bedford  Street,  St 

